Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office
Environmental Notification Form
For Office Use Only
EEA#:
MEPA Analyst:
The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document
electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Street Address: I-90, Cambridge Street and Soldiers Field Road
Municipality: Boston (Allston)
Watershed: Charles River
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42.357593
4691660.71 N, 325275.40 E
Longitude: -71.121626
Estimated commencement date: 2017
Estimated completion date: 2020
Project Type: Roads; Transit-Rail
Status of project design: Conceptual
Design (5 % complete)
Proponent: Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
Street Address: 10 Park Plaza
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02116
Name of Contact Person: James Cerbone
Firm/Agency: MassDOT
Street Address: 10 Park Plaza
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02216
Phone: (857) 368-8792 Fax: (857) 368-0609 E-mail: james.cerbone@state.ma.us
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes
No
301 CMR 11.03(1)(a)1 – Direct alteration of 50 or more acres of land.
If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a
Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8))
a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09)
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
(Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.)
Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
11.03)(3)(b)5 – New non-water dependent use of tidelands.
11.03(6)(b)1.a – Construction of a new roadway one-quarter or more miles in length.
11.03(6)(b)1.b – Widening of an existing roadway by four or more feet for one-half or more
miles.
Which State Agency Permits will the project require?
Effective January 2011
Chapter 91 License – Mass DEP
Notification Prior to Construction or Demolition – MassDEP
Review under M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27C as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988
- Massachusetts Historical Commission
Consistency Review – Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Access Permit – Department of Conservation and Recreation
8(m) Permit – Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Building Permit – Department of Public Safety
Sewer Use Discharge Permit, a Group Permit or a General Permit (To Be Determined) Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth,
including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres:
MassDOT will fund the construction of the I-90 Allston Interchange Project with Metropolitan
Highway System funds and other non-federal aid funding.
Summary of Project Size
& Environmental Impacts
LAND
Existing
Total site acreage
New acres of land altered
Acres of impervious area
Square feet of new bordering
vegetated wetlands alteration
Square feet of new other wetland
alteration
Change
Total
150
0
67
-4.7
62.3
0
Inland Bank - TBD
(ped bridge over
1
SFR )
Riverfront Area TBD (ped bridge
over SFR)
Acres of new non-water dependent
use of tidelands or waterways
1.3
STRUCTURES
Gross square footage
Number of housing units
Maximum height (feet)
16,400± SF
49,200± SF
65,600± SF
N/A
N/A
N/A
~25 (existing
viaduct)
+25
147,000
0
147,000
0
70
70
0
5,700
5,700
N/A
0
0
N/A
5,700
5,700
2
~50
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle trips per day 3
Parking spaces
WASTEWATER
Water Use (Gallons per day)
Water withdrawal (GPD)
Wastewater generation/treatment
(GPD)
A new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road.
of West Station 25 feet above station mezzanine floor which is level with station access roads.
3 Vehicles trips per day on I-90 at the existing interchange.
1
2 Height
-2-
Length of water mains (miles)
N/A
Length of sewer mains (miles)
N/A
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA #
)
No
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA # 15028
)
No
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION – all proponents must fill out this section
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site:
Project Area
The I-90 Allston Interchange Project area includes the area encompassed by the former Beacon Park
Yards (BPY) and bounded by Ashford Street to the south, the Commonwealth Avenue bridge and
Soldiers Field Road to the east, and Cambridge Street to the north and west. The project limit to the
west on I-90 includes the Lincoln Street pedestrian bridge over I-90.
Within these boundaries the project area includes Interstate 90 (I-90), also known as the
Massachusetts Turnpike, I-90 interchanges 16, 17 and 18, a major local arterial (Cambridge Street) and
its intersections, and active and inactive railroad facilities in BPY. I-90 within the project area is
partially at-grade, partially carried on embankment sections, and partially traverses a viaduct. The
project area also includes Soldiers Field Road, an historic parkway, and the adjacent Paul Dudley White
Path, a shared-use path, along the banks of the Charles River.
Most of the land within the project area is presently owned by Harvard University, with the existing I90 interchange and railroad facilities operated by CSX Corporation and MassDOT located within
easements. Existing land use within the project area consists of highway and street roadways, the Paul
Dudley White Path, and railroad transportation elements surrounded by undeveloped open space,
largely portions of a former rail yard.
Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements:
NOTE: The project description should summarize both the project’s direct and indirect impacts
(including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration
and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements
of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these
requirements into the future.
Need for the Project
The existing I-90 viaduct, constructed in 1965, is deteriorating and nearing the end of its useful life.
Additional maintenance of the viaduct is becoming increasingly expensive and the viaduct must be
replaced. The existing I-90 toll plazas will be removed in the near future as toll plazas along the
Massachusetts Turnpike will be replaced with All Electronic Tolling. There is an opportunity to
reconfigure the interchange to meet modern highway design standards, improve safety on I-90, and
enable future development in the project area with a new interchange design.
The intersection of the I-90 ramps with Cambridge Street is severely congested in both the morning and
afternoon peak hours. The intersection of Cambridge Street with Soldiers Field Road averages 55
crashes per year and is within the top 5% of crash locations in the Boston region. The existing I-90
Allston interchange is a significant part of the regional and local infrastructure carrying over 140,000
-3-
vehicles per day, and connecting Logan Airport, I-93 and downtown Boston with areas to the west with
connections to I-95 and I-495.
Access for alternative modes of transportation in the project area is constrained. Bicycle riders and
pedestrians in the area do not have easy access to the Charles River, the Paul Dudley White Bike Path,
and the Charles River Reservation. The BPY and the I-90 interchange have prevented direct and
convenient access from Cambridge Street to areas of Allston south of the rail yard.
Harvard University, which owns the former rail yard property, will develop the area in the future. This
anticipated future growth will spur the need for additional public transit service in the project area.
MassDOT has identified a future commuter rail station, West Station, located along the existing
Worcester branch commuter rail line to South Station. A potential future connection for potential diesel
multiple unit (DMU) service along the Grand Junction Rail corridor to North Station in Boston has also
been identified as a future opportunity.
Components of the Project
The four existing interchange toll plazas within the project area will be removed and replaced by an All
Electronic Tolling system with gantries positioned east and west of the project limits under a separate
project in 2016. Removal of the toll plazas creates an opportunity to reduce the paved area within the
project area and create a new and more efficient roadway system.
I-90 Viaduct and Soldiers Field Road
The viaduct extends from just east of the Allston Brighton toll plaza and extends approximately 2,500
feet to the east, passing over the MassDOT commuter rail and Grand Junction railroad tracks before
ending to the west of the Commonwealth Avenue overpass over I-90. The I-90 Allston Interchange
Project proposes to completely reconstruct the viaduct to modern interstate highway design standards.
Four travel lanes will be provided in each direction, with incorporation of shoulders and a breakdown
lane.
The new viaduct will be slightly cantilevered over the eastbound lanes of Soldiers Field Road in the area
immediately west of the Grand Junction Railroad bridge. A portion of Soldiers Field Road will be
relocated to the south, away from the Charles River. This relocation will result in an area of additional
parkland along the Charles River and the Paul Dudley White bike path.
Interchange
The existing interchange will be completely reconfigured and reconstructed to modern interstate
highway design standards. Working in cooperation with a 50-member Task Force of residents, business
owners, city officials, and other local stakeholders, MassDOT explored a range of interchange concepts
ultimately focusing upon suburban-type interchanges and urban-type interchanges. Suburban-type
interchanges are generally characterized by broadly sweeping ramp systems providing direct access to
and from the highway system to local streets. Urban-type interchanges generally utilize a system of
signal-controlled access roadways to provide connections from the highway to the local street system
and more closely resemble typical urban street networks. MassDOT, with input from the Task Force,
has determined that an urban-type interchange design is preferred for replacing the existing
interchange. An urban interchange occupies less land area than a suburban style interchange design,
better fits the urban context of the project area, and better accommodates additional multimodal
connections and future land development in the former BPY.
Several alternative variants of the urban interchange concept were explored, varying the numbers of
connecting roadways between I-90 and Cambridge Street, one-way and two way traffic patterns and
adding a Parallel Roadway south of Cambridge Street. Development of the urban interchange concepts
was an iterative process, culminating in three variations of the 3J series as preferred conceptual
alternatives. Earlier concepts (3A through 3H) were eliminated for the following reasons:
-4-
 Traffic operations and safety;
 Ability to accommodate future land development; and
 Multi-modal connectivity to West Station and throughout the project area.
See Attachment 9 for a detailed description of the alternatives and a description of the preliminary
Alternatives Evaluation criteria and preliminary screening of alternatives.
Alternatives 3J-1, 3J-2, and 3J-3 best meet the goals of the project. The preferred conceptual
alternatives encompass the major design variables to be explored further in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR):
 Connections between I-90 to a two-way Cambridge Street without a parallel roadway south of
Cambridge Street (3J-1);
 Connections between I-90, a one-way parallel roadway south of Cambridge Street, and a one-way
Cambridge Street (3J-2); and
 Connections between I-90, a two-way parallel roadway south of Cambridge Street, and two-way
Cambridge Street (3J-3).
Each of these preferred alternatives are described in the ENF and will be developed in greater detail and
analyzed in the DEIR.
Figures 11A through 11C in Attachment 5 illustrate the three variations of Alternative 3J. Figures
illustrating the 16 interchange alternatives developed to date are included in ENF Attachment 9.
West Station and Commuter Rail Layover
MassDOT is beginning to design a new commuter rail station (West Station) within the BPY. West
Station will be constructed along the existing commuter rail tracks of the Worcester Branch line at the
south border of the parcel. The station will consist of two platforms serving four service tracks. The
platforms will be accessed through a station structure at a mezzanine level over the platforms, with local
street connections for pedestrian and bicycle access from the south, and a busport located on the north
side of the station. The busport would be connected to the I-90 interchange by means of a viaduct loop
rising above the BPY layover facility. Design development during the DEIR will consider feasibility of a
two-way bus loop, a “kiss and ride” area, as well as provisions for shuttles and taxis.
The street connections would provide for bicycle/pedestrian access from Malvern Street and from
Babcock Street south of the station. MassDOT plans to provide a bicycle/pedestrian connection from
the Babcock Street station access point to the Paul Dudley White Bicycle Path at Soldiers Field Road.
The details of this connection and its relationship to the West Station access have yet to be developed.
As part of the South Station Expansion project (EEA #15028), MassDOT determined that there is a
need for additional layover capacity for commuter rail operations. MassDOT intends to expand layover
capacity to the west of South Station to provide a more-balanced mix of commuter rail layover sites
across the commuter rail system, and the preferred location is BPY. MassDOT also intends to include
certain operational support functions at BPY, including a covered pit track, a wheel truing facility, a
train car wash, a power substation, and crew quarters. MassDOT has determined that it is appropriate
to consider the review of a layover facility as part of the I-90 Allston Interchange Project’s
environmental review process.
Figure 11D in Attachment 5 illustrates the conceptual layout for West Station and the layover yard
facilities.
Cambridge Street
Cambridge Street will be redesigned in accordance with MassDOT and City of Boston Complete Streets
design guidelines. Conceptual design for Cambridge Street includes sidewalks on either side of the
-5-
street separated from a cycle track by a planted buffer. A separate parking lane, (with bus stops at
intervals), along with travel and/or turning lanes are also included. The existing overpass over the I-90
ramps at the eastern end of Cambridge Street will be removed. The number of lanes at locations along
Cambridge Street varies with different interchange design alternatives, but pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations are features of all of the alternatives under further consideration.
Multi-modal Improvements
In accordance with the GreenDOT policy, MassDOT is integrating measures to improve access for
alternative modes of transportation within the project design. These measures include:
 Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Cambridge Street, the roadway segments to be
constructed in the area south of Cambridge Street, and roadway connections to West Station;
 Bicycle and pedestrian connections from West Station south to Ashford Street;
 Construction of a shared-use pathway ( termed the “People’s Pike” by some members of the
community ), providing a more direct connection from the area of Cambridge Street and Lincoln
Street to the Charles River and the existing Paul Dudley White bicycle path, including a new
bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road;
 A new West Station commuter rail station; and
 Multi-modal access to West Station.
MassDOT will continue to develop the details and location of the multi-modal improvements through
the design phase of the project, including the final alignment of the shared-use pathway and the
location of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road.
Lincoln Street Pedestrian Bridge
Based on preliminary pedestrian and bicycle data significant demand already exists to maintain a
pedestrian and bicycle facility that crosses I-90 immediately west of the Cambridge Street overpass. The
existing pedestrian bridge is non-compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act/Architectural
Access Board (ADA/AAB) requirements for access ramp grades. Due to existing development and
significant variation in topography in the vicinity of this location south of I-90, the new structure will
likely require construction of retaining walls and may require some property taking in order to comply
with accessibility requirements.
Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable),
considered by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under
current zoning, and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative:
NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters
and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that
the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the
greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations,
alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations.
MassDOT has initiated engineering and environmental investigations for the project. Working in
cooperation with the Task Force, a range of conceptual interchange alternative designs has been
developed. Interchange alternatives include both suburban and urban style interchange designs.
Suburban style designs generally occupy greater land area than a more compact urban style design and
were determined to be unsuitable as viable alternative designs. An urban interchange design would
occupy less land area, leaving more space available for future land development in the project area, and
would better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle improvements and provide access to West Station for
all modes of transportation.
-6-
Interchange
A total of sixteen (16) conceptual alternative interchange designs have been identified. The alternatives
differ in the arrangement and number of ramp connections to Cambridge Street, the amount of elevated
or at-grade ramp and/or roadway segments, and the degree to which an alternative provides for
improved multi-modal connectivity throughout the project area.
As the alternatives were developed through coordination with the Task Force, later versions of the
urban interchange design incorporated design variations involving the layout of Cambridge Street, as
described below.
Figures illustrating the 16 interchange alternatives are included in ENF Attachment 9. ENF Attachment
9 includes the draft Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria developed with input from the Task Force
and also includes a summary matrix of the preliminary screening of the project alternatives.
MassDOT will continue to advance design elements and enhancements as identified through the Task
Force meetings. These include:


















Shared-use pathway location, width, features, etc.;
Replacement of pedestrian bridge over I-90;
Sidewalk and cycle treatment along Cambridge Street and other facilities;
Travel lanes/intersection layout for Cambridge Street;
Other roadways including parallel roadways north and south of Cambridge Street;
Location of bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road;
Extent of the relocation of Soldiers Field Road;
Allocation of open space within the area of relocated Soldiers Field Road;
West Station including connections to the north and south;
Rail layover yard configuration and operations;
Viaduct configuration;
Approach streets to West Station;
Incorporate Central Transportation Planning Staff regional traffic study;
Noise, vibration and air quality analysis;
Providing a project design that would not preclude a future two-track Grand Junction Railroad
crossing;
Stormwater treatment and feasible Best Management Practices;
State Highway “No Access” limits on connecting roadways; and
Construction staging concepts.
West Station and Commuter Rail Layover
MassDOT considered several options to locate the station platforms for West Station. In opting for the
present location, MassDOT weighed factors including the distances between adjacent stations (Boston
Landing and Yawkey Station), and the travel-time headways needed to promote maximum system
efficiency. MassDOT also considered neighborhood issues in its siting criteria, and it determined that
locating the station and pedestrian access points furthest to the east within BPY would result in the
fewest direct and indirect impacts to the residential neighborhood on Wadsworth and Pratt Streets.
MassDOT also considered various options for the station and platform layout, and determined that a
two-platform/four-track arrangement would provide the optimal arrangement to provide service along
the Worcester Branch and potential future two-track service along the Grand Junction Branch into
Cambridge. Other options that were considered included a single platform with two tracks, and a twoplatform/three-track arrangement. MassDOT also considered platform height options (low, mini-high,
and high types) and is opting for the high platform to best achieve accessibility goals for the station.
-7-
MassDOT developed a tiered alternatives analysis process to identify potential locations to meet the
future South Station Expansion (SSX) Project operational needs. Initially, MassDOT identified 28
alternatives for screening in consideration of:








Ease of land acquisition;
Effect on operations;
Ability to integrate the site into the existing rail and roadway networks;
Consistency with adopted plans and zoning;
Ability to meet location requirements;
Railroad operations,
Environmental impacts; and
Capital improvements.
MassDOT advanced on four locations for the final evaluation. These locations included BPY, the Boston
Transportation Department (BTD) Tow Lot, Widett Circle, and Readville - Yard 2. BPY was the only
location that is along a western branch line.
MassDOT determined that no single site could meet the physical and operational requirements to fully
meet the SSX future layover needs. Ultimately, they determined that a plan that maximized use of the
BPY and Widett Circle sites, in combination with additional capacity at Readville – Yard 2, would
provide the greatest capacity and operational flexibility when compared to all other scenarios. Based on
these findings, MassDOT selected the combination of Widett Circle, BPY, and Readville – Yard 2 for
inclusion as part of the preferred alternative in the SSX DEIR analysis. By maximizing the use of the
BPY, MassDOT will minimize damage to locations that are presently not a part of the railroad network.
Cambridge Street Design
In conjunction with the Task Force, MassDOT has identified alternative design options for
improvements to Cambridge Street incorporating principles outlined in MassDOT and City of Boston
Complete Streets design guidelines. All design options include full bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations and include landscaping treatments to improve the streetscape along Cambridge
Street. Depending on the interchange design alternative, the design of Cambridge Street varies in
width, the number of travel lanes and the number of turning lanes at specific intersections from
Soldiers Field Road west to the overpass over I-90.
As additional urban interchange design alternatives were identified in conjunction with the Task Force,
three design variations for the reconstruction of Cambridge Street were developed, including:
 Two-way Cambridge Street with parking/bus stop lane and the addition of turning lanes at I-90
ramp connection intersections;
 A one-way pair of roadways with a narrower Cambridge Street for eastbound traffic and a Parallel
Roadway south of Cambridge Street for westbound traffic; and
 A two-way pair with two-way traffic on both Cambridge Street and the new Parallel Roadway
south of Cambridge Street.
No Build Alternative
MassDOT will also evaluate a No Build Alternative in the DEIR. The No Build Alternative will include
the following:
 The existing toll plaza will be removed and All Electronic Tolling gantries installed east and west
of the interchange;
 Barriers will be installed in the area of the toll plaza in order to narrow the highway to four lanes
in each direction;
 No modifications will be made to the existing interchange ramps;
-8-
 No changes will be made to Cambridge Street;
 No changes will be made to the intersection of Cambridge Street/River Street with Soldiers Field
Road;
 West Station will not be constructed;
 Accommodation of a second track for future DMU service on the Grand Junction Railroad will not
be made;
 No shared-use pathway, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and other multi-modal
improvements will be constructed;
 Stadium Way will be constructed by others;
 Soldiers Field Road will not be relocated and no additional parkland will be created;
 No improvements to stormwater runoff water quality will be made; and
 No highway noise mitigation will be implemented.
The No Build Alternative will also include the construction of the MassDOT commuter rail layover yard
in BPY.
Public Outreach
As noted, MassDOT has convened a 50-member Task Force of residents, business owners, city officials,
and other local stakeholders to provide stakeholder input on the broad range of issues affecting
interchange design and to narrow the range of design alternatives to a preferred alternative or
alternatives. Over a series of meetings, the Task Force input has informed MassDOT’s decisions
regarding the development of implementable alternatives, selection of a preferred alternative, and the
details of design.
A total of ten (10) Task Force meetings have been held (the tenth meeting is scheduled for November 5):










May 7;
May 21;
June 11;
June 25;
July 16;
August 13;
September 3;
October 1;
October 15; and
November 5.
Task Force meeting minutes are available on the project website:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/AllstonI90InterchangeImprovementPr
oject.aspx
The Task Force has provided insight on a broad range of issues and has provided input regarding the
evolution of design alternatives. The major Task Force influences on the interchange concepts are
summarized as:





Overall emphasis on neighborhood cohesion;
Advancement of urban interchange concepts;
Integration and location of West Station into the project;
Incorporation of a shared-use pathway providing a route from North Allston to the Charles River;
Inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout the project including connections to
the Charles River waterfront, Cambridge, West Station and the Boston University area;
 Flexibility for future land use development opportunities;
 Importance of a traffic design which discourages cut-through traffic on residential streets;
-9-
 Defining the scale of Cambridge Street and including sidewalks, cycle tracks, and on-street
parking to create an urban streetscape; and
 Focus on reducing the impact of the interchange roadways on the surrounding neighborhood.
The Task Force members have requested that MassDOT continue holding Task Force meetings
periodically through the environmental review and project design process to provide input at key
decision making points in the project.
Additional agency and neighborhood coordination meetings have been held to discuss the project,
identify issues of concern and coordinate city and MassDOT resources. These meetings include the
following agencies, institutions and neighborhood organizations:






Boston Redevelopment Authority;
Boston Transportation Department;
Harvard University;
Boston University;
Cambridge City Council; and
Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.
MassDOT has also held two public informational meetings in Allston on April 10 and September 18 to
present the project details and to solicit additional public input. MassDOT will continue to hold
quarterly public meetings to update the public on project details, progress on the completion of the
environmental impact analysis of the project, and to further solicit public input.
Through Task Force and public input during conceptual development, the project scope was expanded
to include such items as:
 West Station as a design component of this project;
 Analysis of BPY layover facilities; and
 Inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian bridges over Soldiers Field Road and at Franklin Street over I-90.
Finally, MassDOT will continue to seek input on urban design issues from key stakeholders, and other
entities including the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Boston Society of Architects during the
DEIR process.
A summary of the public outreach process conducted to date is included as Attachment 10 to this ENF.
Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative:
In the DEIR, MassDOT will seek to avoid and minimize environmental impacts and identify feasible
mitigation measures to offset the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. At this conceptual
stage of design, MassDOT has identified several potential mitigation measures:
 Incorporation of appropriate Best Management Practices for stormwater management during
construction and operation of the project in compliance with the MassDEP Stormwater
Management Regulations;
 Construction of a noise barrier to mitigate rail noise impacts along the south side of the commuter
rail tracks and further transit and highway noise evaluation to determine if additional noise
barriers are reasonable and feasible;
 A project design that includes moving traffic away from the North Harvard Street neighborhood
where possible; and
 Detailed construction traffic management plans to protect businesses and residents during project
construction.
- 10 -
MassDOT will identify any additional mitigation in the DEIR as project design is developed further and
impact analyses are completed. A combined highway traffic noise and transit noise and vibration study
will be completed to identify feasible mitigation measures where warranted.
If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase:
Construction of the I-90 Allston Interchange project, particularly the replacement of the existing
viaduct and construction of additional roadway infrastructure in the area south of Cambridge Street,
will be constructed in phases to safely maintain traffic flow through the project area. Conceptual viaduct
and interchange construction phasing plans will be developed for the DEIR. The design/build
contractor will develop the final construction phasing plans for the viaduct replacement and
interchange construction.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:
Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?
Yes (Specify__________________________________)
No
If yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan.
_______________________________________________________
Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC.
_________________________________________________
RARE SPECIES:
Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm)
No
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place
or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
Yes (Specify_See below______ )
No
The project area is bordered by the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Harvard Avenue
Historic District, both of which are listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The
Charles River Basin is the keystone element in the Boston metropolitan park system, the first such
system brought into being in the United States. Historically a tidal estuary flanked by mud flats, the
lower reaches of the Charles were transformed into a park-lined basin after construction of the Charles
River Dam in 1910. The 820-acre district includes the Charles River Basin itself and the parkways and
landscaped areas on both banks of the river for approximately six miles, from the Charles River Dam to
the Elliot Bridge. The elements of the Charles River Basin Historic District closest to the project area
include Soldiers Field Road, the Boston University Bridge, the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, and the
River Street Bridge.
The Harvard Avenue Historic District encompasses approximately 23 acres of land along the
north/south axis of the Harvard Avenue Corridor in Allston and is significant as an illustration of smallscale land development by individual property owners and local real estate syndicates in the early 20th
century. The Allston Station, a Richardsonian Romanesque railway station constructed in 1887 by
Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, is located adjacent to the project area and within the bounds of the Harvard
Avenue Historic District; the station also has been designated a Local Landmark by the City of Boston.
Nearby properties included in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the
Commonwealth, but not listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places, include the
Longefellow [sic] House at 4 Wadsworth Street and several Boston University facilities on the southern
side of the CSX tracks, including the College of Fine Arts Building at 855-861 Commonwealth Avenue
(BOS.8069), the B.U. College of General Studies at 871 Commonwealth Avenue (BOS.15420), the
Boston Academic Office Building at 25 Buick Street (BOS.15426), the B.U. Comptroller-Registrar’s
- 11 -
Office at 991 Commonwealth Avenue (BOS.15419), the Physical Plant Building at 120 Ashford Street
(BOS.15429), the Athletics Department Building at 300-316 Babcock Street (BOS.15428), and the
Nickerson Field Entrance/Boston Braves Baseball Field, Office and Gatehouse at 32 Agganis Way
(BOS.15414). Inventoried areas in the general vicinity of the project area include Packards Corner
(BOS.KO), Ashford Street (BOS.KS), Gardner Street 4-98 (BOS.LC), Hano Street (BOS.KM), and
Adamson Street 1-87 (BOS.KP).
There are no State Register-listed or recorded archaeological sites within the project area. The closest
recorded pre-Contact archaeological site (19-MD-172) is located on the opposite bank of the Charles
River, approximately 1000 feet northeast of the project area. The closest recorded historic site
(Cambridge Almshouse, CAM.1) is located more than 800 feet northeast of the project. The next closest
recorded pre-Contact archaeological site (19-MD-173) is located approximately 1 mile north of the
project area and the next closest recorded historic site (John F. Kennedy Birthplace, BKL.4) is located
more than a ½ mile south of the project area.
Preliminary review indicates the project area has been heavily impacted by past highway, railway, and
utility construction and that survival of intact archaeological resources is unlikely. MassDOT Cultural
Resources Unit staff is reviewing the project for historic and archaeological impacts and will coordinate
these findings with the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the State Historic Preservation
Officer in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
and M.G.L. Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988.
Figure 10 in ENF Attachment 4 illustrates the historic resources in the project area.
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic
or archaeological resources?
Yes (Specify__________________________________)
No
Although no demolition or destruction of historic resources is anticipated, the project as currently
proposed would relocate one section of Soldiers Field Road slightly to increase the width of the parkland
adjacent to the riverbank. The toll plaza and some utility buildings associated with the Massachusetts
Turnpike and CSX railroad will be demolished as part of the project, however, none of these buildings are
State Register-listed or inventoried.
WATER RESOURCES:
Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? ___Yes X No;
if yes, identify the ORW and its location. ______________________________________________
(NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering
wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP; certain waters within Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.)
Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? X
identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment:
Yes ___No; if yes,
Charles River segment MA 72-36 (source: Final Massachusetts Year 2012 Integrated List of Waters)









Fish-Passage Barrier
Non-Native Aquatic Plants
Other flow regime alterations
Other
Chlorophyll-a
DDT
Escherichia coli 1
Fishes Bioassessments
Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
- 12 -







Oil and Grease
Oxygen, Dissolved
PCB in Fish Tissue
pH, High
Phosphorus (Total)
Secchi disk transparency
Sediment Bioassays – Acute Toxicity Freshwater
Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts Water Resources
Commission? ___Yes X No
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply
with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations:
Due to the fact that the project area is located within an urban area which encompasses an historic
railroad yard, the I-90 Allston Interchange Project will be designed in compliance with the MassDEP
Stormwater Management performance standards for redevelopment projects and will comply with the
Stormwater Management Regulations to the maximum extent possible. MassDOT will investigate
measures to achieve groundwater recharge in the project area consistent with existing groundwater
levels and areas of soil and groundwater contamination.
A detailed construction period Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed
and implemented during project construction.
MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:
Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan? Yes X No ___ ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking Number
(RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification):__________________
There are currently 88 Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
within the boundaries of or in the near vicinity of the site, each representing a release of oil or
hazardous materials (OHM) that was considered reportable to the DEP under the MCP. A total of 53 of
the RTNs fall within the site proper, while 35 fall very close to, but not within, the boundaries of the
site. The vast majority of these RTNs are attributable to releases of various quantities of petroleum
products, much of it diesel fuel oil, but releases of dielectric fluids and hydraulic fluids have also been
reported.
In addition, reportable levels of select metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have also been
observed in site soils. The DEP searchable sites database does not list any of these RTNs as being
associated with an Activity and Use Limitation at this time. To date all but two of these RTNs have
reached some measure of resolution by virtue of having been the subject of one of the following MCP
filings: Downgradient Property Status, Permanent Solution (Class A or B Response Action Outcomes
(RAOs)), Temporary Solutions (Class C RAOs), Utility Release Abatement Measures (URAMs), or
having been linked to another RTN to facilitate tracking. The two open sites are in Phase II
(Comprehensive Site Investigation) and Phase IV (Remedy Implementation), respectively. The
population of RAOs includes Temporary Solutions designated by Class C RAOs. These Class C RAOs
require some level of continued monitoring and periodic evaluation to assess feasibility of achieving
Permanent Solutions.
A listing of the RTNs is included in ENF Attachment 8.
The information provided in the documentation of these RTNs will be used to inform design elements,
construction practices, and materials management during construction of the project.
Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes ___ No _X__;
- 13 -
if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL:
_____________________.
Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN?
Yes ___ No X ; if yes, please describe:____________________________________
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:
If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered
for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood:
MassDOT adopted its GreenDOT Policy Directive on June 2, 2010, with the primary goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; promote the healthy transportation options of walking, bicycling, and public
transit; and to support smart growth development. As part of that policy, and as specified in Appendix
B to the GreenDOT Policy Directive, MassDOT has identified specific measures for implementation,
including measures identified under the category of “Sustainable Design and Construction Best
Practices.” For example, MassDOT currently uses a range of recycled materials in pavement, including
recycled asphalt pavement, recycled tires, and shingles, as well as warm mix asphalt. MassDOT is
working to increase the use of environmentally-friendly technologies, and continues to conduct
research so that it can maximize use of recycled materials and warm-mix asphalt paving.
MassDOT will also require thorough contract specifications that the contractor recycle demolition
materials to the maximum extent practicable. Structural steel, concrete and asphalt pavement are
commonly recycled in the Commonwealth.
(NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts
landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills.
See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.)
Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom01.htm
MassDOT Highway Division’s Hazardous Materials Unit reviews all projects to determine if the project
will encounter and/or generate waste containing asbestos. If asbestos containing materials are
encountered, appropriate special conditions are provided in the project’s contract, such that contractors
handle and dispose of those materials appropriately and in accordance with all applicable local, state,
and federal regulations.
MassDOT will conduct a visual inspection of the buildings to identify the presence, location, and
quantity of suspect asbestos containing materials. Work plans will be developed for sampling based on
the facility walk-throughs once the inspections are complete. Bulk samples of potential hazardous
materials will be collected for laboratory analysis. Once the laboratory results are received, types,
conditions, and quantities of potential hazardous materials and universal wastes, including PCBs, lead
paint, fluorescent light tubes, light ballasts, CFCs and refrigerants associated with HVAC systems,
mercury switches, emergency light batteries, and exit signs, etc. will be documented and inventoried.
Finally, response actions that would be required prior to demolition will be identified. Response
actions could be required, including development of a site-specific health and safety plan.
Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment:
As stated in MassDOT’s GreenDOT Policy Directive, MassDOT requires that contractors install
emission control devices in all off-road vehicles. MassDOT’s Revised Diesel Retrofit Specification states
emissions control standards must be met or technology must be used for non-road, diesel powered
construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower on MassDOT job sites.
MGL Chapter 90, Section 16A and the DEP idling reduction regulation (310 CMR 7.11(1)(b)) prohibit
unnecessary vehicle idling and require that engines be shut down if the vehicle will be stopped for more
than five minutes. Compliance with this regulation will be required in the construction contract.
- 14 -
DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:
Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally
designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No X_
if yes, specify name of river and designation:
If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the “outstandingly remarkable”
resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River?
Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: _____________;
if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated “outstandingly remarkable”
resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River.
Yes ___ No ___ ;
if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources or
stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3..
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
List of all attachments to this document.
U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-½ x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000)
indicating the project location and boundaries. Figure 1 – USGS Locus Map
Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate
environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way,
wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and
major utilities. Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph
Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the
project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands,
wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources
and/or districts. Figures 3 through 10
Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if
construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing
conditions upon the completion of each phase). Figures 11A through 11D – Proposed
Conditions
List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable.
MGL Chapter 21E Release Tracking Notification Information
Supplemental Information, Alternatives Development and Future Analyses
Summary of Public Outreach Process
- 15 -
LAND SECTION – all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
_X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, specify each threshold:
11.03(1)(a)1 – Direct alteration of 50 or more acres of land…
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Existing
Change
Total
Footprint of buildings
__0.4_ _
__1.1 _
__1.5__
Internal roadways
___0___
___0___
___ 0__
Parking and other paved areas
__67____
__ -4.7__ _
__62.3__
Other altered areas
__82.6___
__3.6___
__86.2__
Undeveloped areas
___0____
____0___
___0___
Total: Project Site Acreage
__150___
____0___
_150 ___
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years?
___ Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or
locally important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use?
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
___ Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and
indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by
the Department of Conservation and Recreation:
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to
any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction?
Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction?
___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe:
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change
in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
describe:
G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No X ; if yes, describe:
III. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan
Title:_North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning_
Date: ___2005_____
The North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning (2005) was prepared by the Boston
Redevelopment Authority (BRA).
B. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
1)
economic development _______________________
2)
adequacy of infrastructure _____________________
- 16 -
3)
4)
open space impacts ___________________________
compatibility with adjacent land uses_______________
The North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning lists the following among its goals,
principles, and vision statements: undertake infrastructure initiatives, including transportation
improvements; expand and enhance pedestrian/bicycle networks, encourage walking and
bicycle use, and promote pedestrian safety. The project is consistent with these goals through its
maintenance of vital infrastructure, provision of cycle tracks, and proposed pedestrian
improvements.
C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
RPA: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
Title:_ MetroFuture
Date_May 2008__________
D. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development ________________________
2) adequacy of infrastructure _______________________
3) open space impacts ____________________________
Boston is within the Inner Core subregion of the MAPC. MetroFuture establishes a vision for the
region in terms of land use and development and establishes 65 goals in six categories: (1)
Sustainable Growth Patterns; (2) Housing Choices; (3) Healthy Communities; (4) Regional
Prosperity; (5) Transportation Choices; and (6) Healthy Environment. A central vision is that
growth is focused in existing developed areas served by an efficient transportation system.
Specific goals include:






Goal 44: An expanded transit system will provide better service to both urban and
suburban areas, linking more homes and jobs.
Goal 45: More people will use transit for work and personal trips.
Goal 46: Commuters will have more options to avoid congestion.
Goal 47: Most people will choose to walk or bike for short trips.
Goal 48: The average person will drive fewer miles every day.
Goal 54: Roads, bridges, and railways will be safe and well maintained.
The I-90 Allston Interchange Project is consistent with the goals of MetroFuture. The project
will maintain the structural integrity of the existing I-90 viaduct and provide a safe interstate
highway and local roadways, encourage nonautomotive travel by improving conditions for
pedestrians and cyclists in the project area, and include the construction of a new commuter rail
station to provide additional transit options in the project area.
Massachusetts Healthy Transportation Compact
Relative to the work of this Compact, MassDOT has articulated its vision as: “…a strong
commitment to pedestrian and bicycle access. Walking and bicycling move people out of singleoccupant vehicles, reduce traffic congestion, and promote healthy lifestyles and a cleaner
environment.” The Compact’s goals include:

Promoting interagency cooperation on healthy transportation policy;
- 17 -



Increasing access to healthy transportation alternatives; these will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, increase opportunities for physical activity, and improve access to
transportation services for persons with disabilities;
Increasing bicycle and pedestrian travel; and
Supporting implementation of “complete streets” in construction projects.
The I-90 Allston Interchange Project will advance the goals of the Healthy Transportation
Compact.
- 18 -
RARE SPECIES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 11.03(2))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
(NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.)
B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? ___ Yes
X
No
C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the
current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes X No.
D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Rare Species section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes ___ No. If yes,
1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? ___Yes ___No; if yes, have you received a
determination as to
whether the project will result in the “take” of a rare species? ___
Yes ___ No; if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission.
2. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, provide
a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts
3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat?
4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act? ___ Yes ___ No
4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an
Order of Conditions for this project? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, did you send a copy of the
Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? ___ Yes ___ No
B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes,
provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant
habitat:
- 19 -
WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _X_ Yes _ _ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
11.03(3)(b)5 – Provided that a Chapter 91 License is required, New or existing
unlicensed non-water dependent use of waterways or tidelands…
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit:
Order of Conditions from Boston Conservation Commission
DEP Chapter 91 Waterways License
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.
II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? _X_ Yes
No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? ___ Yes _X_ No;
if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: ______; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions
been issued? ___ Yes ___ No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will
the project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? ___ Yes _X_ No.
B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on
the project site:
At this stage of conceptual design, MassDOT has not identified conceptual estimates of
direct impacts to jurisdictional wetland resource areas. Potential impacts to resource areas
may result from project activities, including impacts to the Bank of the Charles River for
potential modifications to existing stormwater outfalls and the construction of the bicycle
and pedestrian overpass connecting the shared-use pathway and the Paul Dudley White
path, and temporary and permanent impacts to Riverfront Area resulting from
modifications to the existing layout of Soldiers Field Road, the construction of the bicycle/
pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road and expansion of public parkland along the
river.
C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
Coastal Wetlands
Area (square feet) or
Length (linear feet)
Temporary or
Permanent Impact?
Land Under the Ocean
Designated Port Areas
Coastal Beaches
Coastal Dunes
Barrier Beaches
Coastal Banks
Rocky Intertidal Shores
Salt Marshes
Land Under Salt Ponds
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
___________________
___________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
- 20 -
Land Containing Shellfish
_________________
Fish Runs
_________________
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage _________________
______ _____________
____________________
____________________
Inland Wetlands
Bank (lf)
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands
Land under Water
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
Riverfront Area
_____Permanent______
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
_____Permanent______
______TBD*_____
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
_______TBD*
__
*Potential impact due to bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road
D. Is any part of the project:
1. proposed as a limited project? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, describe:
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? ___ Yes _X_ No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC)? ___ Yes _X_ No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, identify the area (in sf):
7. located in buffer zones? _X_ Yes ___No; if yes, how much (in sf) __TBD*_
*Potential impact due to bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road
E. Will the project:
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? ___ Yes _X_ No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? ___ Yes _X_ No; if
yes, what is the area (sf)?
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? X Yes ___ No; if yes, is there a current Chapter
91 License or Permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, list the date and
license or permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine extent of
filled tidelands:
MassDOT has not yet conducted Chapter 91 historic license research for the project
area. Existing historic tidelands mapping available through MassGIS indicates small
fingers of jurisdictional tidelands along the Charles River and Soldiers Field Road
from the BU Bridge to the Cambridge Street/River Street intersection. The area of the
potential relocation of Soldiers Field Road to the west of the Grand Junction railroad
bridge is identified as filled jurisdictional tidelands. MassDOT will identify all historic
licenses and authorizations in the DEIR. The extent of jurisdictional tidelands is
illustrated on Figure 6 in ENF Attachment 4.
B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? X Yes ___
No; if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-waterdependent use? TBD
Current ___ Change ___ Total ___
- 21 -
If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)? 0
C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following:
Area of filled tidelands on the site:_____________________
Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:_____0______
For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use:
____N/A_______
Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands?
Yes ___ No _X__
Height of building on filled tidelands_____N/A________
Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Waterdependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and
exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low
water marks.
Portions of the reconfigured interchange may be located on areas of filled
jurisdictional tidelands and landlocked tidelands. The impact to jurisdictional filled
tideland areas will be calculated in the DEIR.
D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? X Yes ___ No; if yes, describe the project’s
impact on the public’s right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
Portions of the reconfigured interchange may be located on small areas of landlocked
tidelands.
E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a
municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ___Yes
_X_ No; if yes, describe the project’s impact on groundwater levels and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or
tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR? X Yes _ _ No;
(NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and
Determination.)
G. Does the project include dredging? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, answer the following questions:
What type of dredging? Improvement ___ Maintenance ___ Both ____
What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) _________
What is the proposed dredge footprint ____length (ft) ___width (ft)____depth (ft);
Will dredging impact the following resource areas?
Intertidal Yes__
No__; if yes, ___ sq ft
Outstanding Resource Waters Yes__
No__; if yes, ___ sq ft
Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes__ No__; if yes __
sq ft
If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps
to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either
avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation?
If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support
this determination?
Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in
accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the
sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis.
Sediment Characterization
Existing gradation analysis results? __Yes ___No: if yes, provide results.
- 22 -
Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? ___Yes
____No; if yes, provide results.
Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management
options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option.
Beach Nourishment ___
Unconfined Ocean Disposal ___
Confined Disposal:
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) ___
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) ___
Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 ___
Shoreline Placement ___
Upland Material Reuse____
In-State landfill disposal____
Out-of-state landfill disposal ____
(NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.)
IV. Consistency:
A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located
within the Coastal Zone? _X_ Yes No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency
with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
The boundary of the Coastal Zone within the City of Boston includes the banks of the
Charles River due to the existing fish run in the river. Other than potential
improvements to the existing stormwater outfalls in the Charles River, the I-90 Allston
Interchange Project will have no direct impact to resources in the Coastal Zone.
A full analysis of the project’s consistency with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone
Management will be included in the DEIR.
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes,
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
- 23 -
WATER SUPPLY SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes,
specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section
below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed
activities at the project site:
Existing
Change
Total
Municipal or regional water supply
________
________
________
Withdrawal from groundwater
________
________
________
Withdrawal from surface water
________
________
________
Interbasin transfer
________
________
________
(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed
water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater
from the source will be discharged.)
B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? ___ Yes ___ No
C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water
source, has a pumping test been conducted? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach a map of the drilling
sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. ______________
D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per
day)?
Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? ___Yes ___No; if yes, then how
much of an increase (gpd)? ____________________
E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
___ Yes ___No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:
Permitted
Flow
Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) _______
Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) _______
Existing Avg
Daily Flow
________
________
Project Flow
Total
________
________
________
________
F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
G. Does the project involve:
1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of
the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? ___ Yes ___ No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, how many acres of
alteration?
3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking
- 24 -
water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? ___ Yes ___ No
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water
resources, quality, facilities and services:
- 25 -
WASTEWATER SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.03(5))? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes,
specify which permit:
An MWRA Sewer Use Discharge Permit, an MWRA Group Permit or an MWRA General
Permit (To Be Determined)
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for
existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic
systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems):
Discharge of sanitary wastewater
Discharge of industrial wastewater
TOTAL
Discharge to groundwater
Discharge to outstanding resource water
Discharge to surface water
Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater
facility
TOTAL
Existing
Change
Total
___0____
___0____
___0____
_3,900___
_1,800___
_5,700___
__3,900_
__1,800_
__5,700_
Existing
___0____
___0____
___0____
Change
___0____
___0____
___0____
Total
___0____
___0____
___0____
___0____
___0____
_5,700___
_5,700___
_5,700___
_5,700___
B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, then describe
the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows:
C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity? ___ Yes_X_ No; if
yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows:
D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes
_X_ No; if yes, describe as follows:
Wastewater treatment plant capacity
(in gallons per day)
Permitted
Existing Avg
Daily Flow
Project Flow
Total
__N/A___
__N/A___
__N/A___
__N/A___
E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new? N/A
- 26 -
(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater
will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is
located.)
F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? ___ Yes _X_ No
G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage,
treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings,
wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, what is
the capacity (tons per day):
Existing
________
________
________
________
________
Storage
Treatment
Processing
Combustion
Disposal
Change
________
________
________
________
________
Total
________
________
________
________
________
H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other
wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal.
Water saving plumbing fixtures will be utilized in the buildings. The train car washer will
recycle approximately 80 percent of the water used.
III. Consistency
A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
The project will adhere to BWSC’s rules and regulations, including design and construction
in conformance with current BWSC standards and specifications. As required, MassDOT
will obtain permits for industrial wastewater pretreatment and wastewater discharge in
accordance with BWSC, MWRA and MassDEP regulations.
B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan
and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that
plan:
The project will not require a sewer extension permit.
- 27 -
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION)
I. Thresholds / Permit
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR
11.03(6))? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? _X_ Yes ___
No; if yes, specify which permit:
Department of Conservation and Recreation – Access Permit (modifications to
Soldiers Field Road)
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
II. Traffic Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
Existing
Change
Total
Number of parking spaces
___0___
___0____
__0____
Number of vehicle trips per day
___0____
___0____
__0_____
ITE Land Use Code(s):
___N/A__
________
________
B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway
1. I-90 (MassPike)__
Existing
_147,000
__65,000
__31,000
__12,500
2. Soldiers Field Rd. _
3. Cambridge Street__
4. Western Avenue
Change
___7,000
___3,200
___1,500
___ 600
Total
154,000
__68,200
__32,500
__13,100
Note: Volume change reflects estimate of 0.25% annual growth in regional traffic
between 2014 and 2035
C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the
project proponent will implement:
MassDOT will work with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to develop a design
for the relocation of a portion of Soldiers Field Road to accommodate construction of a
bicycle/pedestrian bridge which will enhance the parkway elements of the roadway and
maintain the existing traffic patterns and capacity.
D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and services to provide access to and from the project site?
As noted in the Project Description, the I-90 Allston Interchange project will include
construction of a new commuter rail station, West Station, on the existing Worcester branch
commuter rail line to South Station with multi-modal access and a commuter rail layover yard
with ancillary facilities. Improved multi-modal accommodations for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic will be incorporated into the project design.
E. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that provides transportation demand
management (TDM) services in the area of the project site? _X_ Yes ____No; if yes, describe
if and how will the project will participate in the TMA:
- 28 -
Representatives of the Allston-Brighton TMA are members of the Task Force.
F. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation
facilities? __X__ Yes ____ No; if yes, generally describe:
The I-90 Allston Interchange project site includes the existing Worcester branch commuter rail
line to South Station and the Grand Junction Railroad.
G. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice
of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title
14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)?
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal
plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and
services:
Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan, September 2008. The I-90 Allston
Interchange Project will be consistent with the recommendations of the Massachusetts Bicycle
Transportation Plan to create better multi-modal connections within the project area. Bicycle
accommodations will be integrated into the project design including the construction of a
shared-use pathway connecting the area of Cambridge Street and Lincoln Street with a direct
connection to the Charles River and the Paul Dudley White bicycle path including a new
bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road. Cycle tracks will be incorporated into the
design of a reconfigured Cambridge Street and the potential Parallel Roadway south of
Cambridge Street. Bicycle access will be provided to the proposed West Station commuter rail
station from Cambridge Street to the north and from Commonwealth Avenue and Brighton
Avenue to the south.
1998 Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The I-90 Allston Interchange
project will be consistent with the recommendations of the Massachusetts Pedestrian
Transportation Plan to create better pedestrian connections and conditions within the project
area. Design features to be integrated into the project design along Cambridge Street and other
Local Connector Roadways to the I-90 ramps include measures to slow traffic speeds, the
addition of frequent and clearly marked road crossings, provision of fully actuated pedestrian
phases in traffic signals, buffering sidewalks from roadway travel lanes and parking lanes, and
connections to the proposed West Station from Cambridge Street to the north and
Commonwealth Avenue and Brighton Avenue to the south.
Long Range Transportation Plan – Paths to A Sustainable Region (and
Amendments through 2013). The layover facility component of the South Station
Expansion project is included in the November 2013 third amendment to the Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP).
The I-90 Allston Interchange Project is consistent with the goals of the LRTP to:


Support transportation projects serving areas identified for economic development by state,
regional, and local planning and areas with a relatively high density of development;
Support health-promoting transportation options, such as bicycle and pedestrian modes,
and activities that reduce single occupant vehicle use and overall vehicle miles traveled;
- 29 -















Expand, and close gaps in, the bicycle and pedestrian network and promote a “complete
streets” philosophy;
Support transportation design and reasonably priced enhancements that protect
community cohesiveness, identity, and quality of life;
Strengthen existing and create new connections within and between modes;
Improve access to transit by all persons and the accessibility of transit for persons
with disabilities;
Improve the frequency, span, and reliability of transit services;
Expand the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks while focusing bicycle investments
(lanes and paths) on moving people between activity centers and linking with transit;
Improve transportation in areas of existing development;
Protect natural resources by planning early to avoid or mitigate impacts on stormwater or
groundwater and on other resources;
Protect public health by reducing air pollutants, including fine particulates;
Avoid funding projects that increase exposure of at-risk populations to ultrafine
particulates;
Increase mode share for transit and nonmotorized modes;
Support stronger land use and smart growth strategies;
Increase transit, bicycle, and pedestrian options; and
Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists; ensure that safety provisions are incorporated
into shared-use corridors.
- 30 -
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES)
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _X_ Yes _ _ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:
301 CMR 11.03(6)(b)1.a – construction of a new roadway one-quarter or more miles in
length
301 CMR 11.03(6)(b)1.b – widening of an existing roadway by four or more feet for one-half
or more miles
B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section
below.
II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project
site:
The project site includes the existing I-90 Allston Interchange, mainline I-90, the
Framingham/Worcester line, and the Grand Junction Railroad.
B. Will the project involve any
1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)?
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)?
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)?
____TBD*___
____0_______
____0_______
* Impacts due to construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road.
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation
Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:
See the response to this question in the Transportation Section (Traffic Generation) of this
ENF.
- 31 -
ENERGY SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))?
___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Existing Change
Total
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts)
________
________
________
Length of fuel line (in miles)
________
________
________
Length of transmission lines (in miles)
________
________
________
Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts)
________
________
________
B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are:
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?
C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
unused, or abandoned right of way? ___Yes ___No; if yes, please describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for
enhancing energy facilities and services:
- 32 -
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.03(8))? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes,
specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
Quality Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons
per day) of:
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic compounds
Oxides of nitrogen
Lead
Any hazardous air pollutant
Carbon dioxide
Existing
Change
Total
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:
III. Consistency
A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:
B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:
33
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? __ Yes _X_No;
if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Existing
Change
Total
Storage
________
________
________
Treatment, processing ________
________
________
Combustion
________
________
________
Disposal
________
________
________
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day)
of the capacity:
Storage
Recycling
Treatment
Disposal
Existing
Change
Total
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal:
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
___ Yes ___ No
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan:
34
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes,
attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? ____Yes ____ No; if yes, attach
correspondence
B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all
or any exterior part of such historic structure? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
The project as currently proposed would slightly relocate one section of Soldiers Field Road
to accommodate a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road which would
increase the width of the parkland adjacent to the riverbank.
C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes _X_ No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, please describe:
D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
II. Impacts
Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and
archaeological resources:
The project as currently proposed would have direct, but limited, impacts on a section of
Soldiers Field Road, which is within the State/National Register-listed Charles River Basin
Historic District. Soldiers Field Road appears to have been constructed in the 1940s and
expanded at least once in the 1950s. The 1950s expansion resulted in the loss of parkland
along the river. Only a guardrail and intermittent width sections of a narrow grass strip
currently separate the roadway and the Paul Dudley White Path. Soldiers Field Road in this
area carries four lanes of traffic and is divided by a median with a double-sided guardrail
barrier. West and south of Soldiers Field Road, the roadway is separated from train tracks
and the existing viaduct by a narrow strip of grass and a chain link fence.
The section of Soldiers Field Road that would be most impacted by the project as currently
proposed extends westerly from the CSX tracks at the BU Bridge. Based on the strong and
unanimous urging of the public and task force members, and with support from DCR,
MassDOT is also proposing to shift a portion of Soldiers Field Road under the proposed
viaduct to increase usable parkland along the river and provide adequate room for the new
bicycle/pedestrian bridge proposed to span Soldiers Field Road. The viaduct would
cantilever over the realigned Soldiers Field Road, ensuring that views of the Charles River
would be unimpeded for vehicular traffic.
The project proposes to construct a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road.
The proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge will be carefully designed to be context sensitive to
35
its location within the Charles River Basin Historic District.
Additional impacts to Soldiers Field Road will involve the construction of new at-grade
connections immediately south of the Doubletree Hotel and north of River Street. The
existing ramp between Soldiers Field Road and I-90 will be removed.
Project impacts in the vicinity of the Harvard Avenue Historic District, which is listed in the
State and National Registers of Historic Places, are expected to be minor and primarily will
involve the reconstruction of an existing bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I-90.
Impacts to inventoried properties south of the project area are anticipated to be very minor.
Pedestrian and bicycle access is proposed to connect West Station with the neighborhood
south of the project area, however, the exact location and design of these connections has
not yet been determined. A noise barrier is proposed to be erected adjacent to the railway
tracks servicing the proposed West Station.
At this stage of project design, no other direct or indirect impacts to listed or inventoried
historical or archaeological assets have been identified.
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:
MassDOT will consult with the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the
Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and M.G.L. Chapter 9, Sections 2627C as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 to determine effects to properties that
may be listed in or eligible for listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places.
MassDOT will determine if additional archaeological or architectural surveys are necessary
as the project design progresses.
36
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 1
List of Attachments to ENF Form
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
List of Attachments
Project Locus Map
Figure 1 USGS Site Locus Map
Attachment 3
Site Plan
Figure 2 Project Site Aerial Photograph
Attachment 4
Environmental Constraints
Figure 3 DEP Regulated Areas
Figure 4 Open Space
Figure 5 Environmental Justice Populations
Figure 6 Chapter 91 Presumptive Jurisdiction
Figure 7 DEP 12K Wetlands and NHESP Data
Figure 8 Drinking Water
Figure 9 FEMA Flood Data
Figure 10 Historic Resources
Attachment 5
Proposed Development Plans
Figure 11A Alternative 3J-1
Figure 11B Alternative 3J-2
Figure 11C Alternative 3J-3
Figure 11D West Station and Layover Yard
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
ENF Circulation List
List of Federal and Municipal Permits
MGL Chapter 21E Release Tracking Notification Information
Figure 8-1 Hazardous Materials Assessment - Sites of
Potential Concern
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Supplemental Information, Alternatives Development and
Preliminary Screening of Alternatives
 Supplemental Information and Alternatives
Development
 Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria and Preliminary
Screening of Project Alternatives
 Figures 9-1 through 9-16 - Preliminary Interchange
Design Alternatives
Summary of Public Outreach Process
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 2
Project Locus Map
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 3
Site Plan
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 4
Environmental Constraints
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 5
Proposed Development Plans
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 6
ENF Circulation List
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
ENF CIRCULATION LIST
David Cash, Commissioner
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Coastal Zone Management
Attn: Project Review Coordinator
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA 02114
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Office
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Division of Conservation and Recreation
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Public/Private Development Unit
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Division of Energy Resources
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
100 Cambridge Street, 10th floor
Boston, MA 02114
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
District 6 Office
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
185 Kneeland Street
Boston, MA 02111
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
100 First Avenue
Charlestown Navy Yard
Boston, MA 02129
The Massachusetts Historical Commission
The MA Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
10 Park Plaza, 6th Fl.
Boston, MA 02216-3966
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place, 6th floor
Boston, MA 02111
Mass DEP
Waterways Regulation Program
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Boston City Council
Boston City Hall
1 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02108
Boston Public Health Commission
1010 Massachusetts Avenue, 6th Fl.
Boston, MA 02118
Boston Redevelopment Authority
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201
Boston Conservation Commission
1 City Hall Square, Room 709
Boston, MA 02201
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
ENF CIRCULATION LIST
The Honorable Michael E. Capuano
110 First Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
Senator Elizabeth A. Warren
2400 JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203
Senator Edward J. Markey
975 JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203
Senator Sal N. DiDomenico
State House Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Representative Brian Honan
State House Room 38
Boston, MA 02133
Senator William N.. Brownsburger
State House Room 413C
Boston, MA 02133
Representative Michael J. Moran
State House Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Allston Brighton Community Development
Corporation
20 Linden Street
Suite 288
Boston, MA 02134
Allston Brighton Area Planning Action Council
143 Harvard Avenue
Boston, MA 02134
Brazilian Immigrant Center Inc.
14 Harvard Avenue
Boston, MA 02134
Robert Zimmerman, Jr.
Executive Director
Charles Water Watershed Association
190 Park Road
Weston, MA 02493
Ms. Ellen Lipsey
Executive Director
Boston Landmarks Commission
One City Hall Plaza, Room 805
Boston, MA 02201
Brooke Thurston
Vice President, Media Relations
St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center
736 Cambridge Street
Brighton, MA 02135
Harvard University
Public Affairs & Communications
1350 Massachusetts Avenue
Smith Campus Center
Cambridge, MA 02138
Boston University
Government & Community Affairs
One Silber Way
Boston, MA 02215
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Government and Community Relations
77 Massachusetts Ave, 11-245
Cambridge, MA 02139
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 7
List of Federal and Municipal Permits
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Issuing Authority
Permit
Federal Permits
Coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
from Construction Activities
Coverage under the NPDES Dewatering
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
General Permit for Dewatering Discharges
from Construction Activities
Coverage Under the NPDES Multi-Sector
General Permit (Railroad Maintenance
facility)
Authorization under Category II of the
US Army Corps of Engineers
Massachusetts Programmatic General
Permit
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Section 106 Review (36 CFR 800)
National Environmental Policy Act review
Federal Highway Administration/Federal
Transit Administration
Section 4(f) Review
Municipal Permits
Boston Conservation Commission
Order of Conditions (310 CMR 10.00)
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 8
MGL Chapter 21E Release Tracking Notification Information
Sheet 1 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
EDR Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
F4
3
51
No Location Aid
250
Lincoln Street
3-0026132
G6
7
41
60 Feet Before Exit 18
Toll
RTE 90 E
3-0015856
F11
7
42
Mile Marker 130.5
Beacon Park
3-0011845
SHWS,
RELEASE
F11
7
43
Flexivan Entrance
Cambridge Street
3-0015898
SHWS,
RELEASE
Reportable release of TPH in soil at 1830 mg/kg. IRA Status report submitted January 6,
1998. Linked to RTN 3-0015067 on July 20, 1998 which has RAO-C1 status..
F11
7
45
Allston Brighton Tolls
Beacon Park
3-0012038
LUST,
RELEASE
Release of oil to soil during the removal of a UST. Excavation of approximately 30 cubic
yards of contaminated soil. Linked to RTN 3-0011845 which has RAO-C1 status.
G6
8
44
CSX Entrance Across
Lincoln Street
310
Cambridge Street
3-0019434
LUST,
RELEASE
G6
8
44
310
Cambridge Street
3-0012144
G6
8
44
310
Cambridge Street
3-0027208
G6
8
44
310
Cambridge Street
3-0024102
G6
8
44
310
Cambridge Street
3-0030428
G7
9
16
Boston Edison Co
Cambridge Street @
Lincoln Street
3-004307
SHWS,
RELEASE
G7
9
17
Lincoln Street
Cambridge Street
3-0015545
SHWS,
RELEASE
E10
13
22
Beacon Park Yard
Cambridge Street
3-0011474
SHWS,
RELEASE
CSX Entrance Across
Lincoln Street
CSX Entrance Across
Lincoln Street
CSX Entrance Across
Lincoln Street
CSX Entrance Across
Lincoln Street
174
Database /
Source
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
Notes / Regulatory Information
Reportable release of lead (467 mg/kg) and TPH (690 mg/kg) in soil. RAM CS and RAO A2 statement submitted December 5, 2006.
Approximately 50 gallons of #2 fuel oil spilled on the roadway on December 21, 1997.
RAO A1 submitted January 21, 1998.
Detection of approximately 3 inches of DNAPL in an on-site groundwater monitoring well
reported on November 10, 1994. Source of petroleum contamination was likely from
former railroad operations and a 10,000-gallon UST that had been abandoned on site.
IRA CS submitted on January 29, 2001. Method 1 Risk Characterization determined a
condition of No Significant Risk based on the location of the contamination beneath
roadways or paved toll plazas, the observations that active migration appeared to be
diminishing and the conclusion that the source of the release is no longer active. A RAO
C1 statement was submitted on August 10, 2000.
Regulatory
Status
RAO-A2
RAO-A1
RAO-C1
RAO NR
(linked to 30015067)
RAO NR
(linked to 311845)
Gasoline (100 ppm) was released from a UST at this site. IRA activities conducted and
IRA CS submitted on June 6, 2000. Tier II classification on April 30, 2001. RAO A2
RAO-A2
statement submitted June 6, 2001.
Approximately 15 gallons of lubricating oil released from a pipe. IRA activities conducted.
RAO-A1
RAO A1 statement submitted on April 5, 1995.
Approximately 225 gallons of diesel fuel released from a rail car saddle tank. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on December 24, 2007.
Approximately 30 gallons of xylene released from a pipe. RAO A1 statement submitted on
RAO-A1
August 9, 2004.
Approximately 500 gallons of vegetable oil released from a rail car. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. IRA CS and RAO A2 statement submitted on October 15, 2012.
Release of approximately 1,800-gallons of cable oil from a buried roadway cable reported
on September 5, 1990. IRA activities conducted included LNAPL gauging and recovery in
monitoring wells, analysis of soil and groundwater samples excavation of impacted soils.
RAO-A2
Excavation and disposal of approximately 6 tons of impacted soil. Method 3 risk
characterization concluded a Condition of No Significant RIsk exists. RAO A2 statement
submitted on May 9, 2003.
Detection of 5.8 inches of NAPL from an on-site monitoring well during Phase II work
RAONR (linked
associated with RTN 3-4307. IRA activities conducted and IRA CS submitted in
to 3-004307)
November 1997. Linked to RTN 3-4307 which has RAO A2 status.
Release of approximately 30 gallons of transformer oil from a vehicle on August 16, 1994.
RAO-A2
IRA activities conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on October 24, 1994.
G7, G8
14
13
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0015067
SHWS,
RELEASE
Oil sheens were detected on the Charles River entering from a storm drain near 310
Cambridge Street which was reported to DEP on March 29, 1997. Gauging of monitoring
wells within the disposal boundary detected up to 1.45 feet of LNAPL. The source of the
LNAPL is unknown; however, it is likely attributed to the historical use of the site as a rail
yard. IRA activities conducted included sealing the joints in the storm drain in 2002 to
prevent infiltration of LNAPL and decommissioning the storm drain groundwater
depression system. RAO C1 statement submitted on September 25, 2003. Post Class C
monitoring activities include semi-annual gauging of groundwater monitoring wells.
F12, F13, G13
72
13
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0028327
SHWS,
RELEASE,
LAST
Release of approximately 300 to 500 gallons of diesel fuel from an AST in a rail yard on
February 19, 2009. IRA activities conducted included recovering the fuel from an oil water RAONR (linked
separator and the excavation of approximately 15 cubic yards of impacted soils. IRA CS
to 3-004495)
submitted on April 15, 2009. Linked to RTN 3-004495.
RAO-C1
Sheet 2 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
Database /
Source
Notes / Regulatory Information
Regulatory
Status
F12, F13, G13
72
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0011783
SHWS,
RELEASE
Release of approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel from a train engine on October 28,
1994. Less than 10 gallons of fuel released to soil - majority was captured in an oil water
separator or absorbant pads. URAM activities conducted. Linked to RTN 3-004495.
RAONR (linked
to 3-004495)
F12, F13, G13
72
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0030531
SHWS,
RELEASE
F12, F13, G13
72
E10
14
E10
EDR Map ID
SHWS,
RELEASE
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0004495
24
Beacon Park Yard
170
Cambridge Street
3-0031374
15
36
Boston Edison Cable
329 510
159
Cambridge Street
3-002988
F10
16
37
Allston Tolls
Rte 90W Milemarker
130.1
3-0026957
SHWS,
RELEASE
G9
17
31
Mass Pike & Conrail/.5
Mi W of Toll
Lincoln Street
3-0010497
SHWS,
RELEASE
G9
17
32
No Location Aid
Corner of Winship
3-0010700
G9
17
33
Conrail Yard
Cambridge Street
3-0015260
E11
18
28
Parcel 1L
South of Cambridge,
Near Windam Street
3-0020100
F12
19
12
Interchange 19
MA Tpke Eastbound
3-0012631
E12
20
40
No Location Aid
East Harvard Street
3-0019578
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0030464
E11
73
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0021281
E11
73
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0024580
E11
73
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0026455
E11
73
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0026496
E11
73
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0026661
D13
24
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0028036
SHWS,
RELEASE,
LAST
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
URAM was conducted to repair a leaking water line located in the CSX Rail Yard within the
disposal boundary identified for RTN 3-0004495. Approximately 30 cubic yards of soil was RAONR (linked
excavated and removed off-site for disposal. URAM CS submitted on September 24,
to 3-004495)
2012. Linked to RTN
3-0004495.
Historic releases of fuel oil and detection of LNAPL on groundwater. LNAPL plume is
located below a layer of peat found across the majority of the site. An emergency
response treatment systems was installed as an IRA to remove LNAPL from 2 extraction
wells which operated from 1995-2002 and extracted a total of approximately 70,000
gallons of LNAPL. System upgraded to include 4 additional extraction wells and and
product-only recovery pumps. RAO C1 statement submitted on May 1, 2000.
RAO-C1
Release of approximately 10 gallons of diesel fuel from an industrial AST on February 18,
2013. IRA activities conducted, and RAO A2 statement submitted on April 18, 2013.
RAO-A2
Release of an unspecified volume of oil onto the roadway from a pipe. Tier classified on
August 2, 1996 and RAO A2 statement submitted on May 6, 1991.
RAO-A2
Release of approximately 50 gallons of diesel fuel onto the roadway from the saddle tank
of a MBTA bus. IRA activities conducted. RAO A1 submitted on September 17, 2007.
RAO-A1
Release of approximately 2,000 gallons of dielectric oil from a pipe. IRA & RAM activities
conducted. RAM CS and Tier Classification submitted on February 1, 1995. RAO A2
submitted on April 19, 1994.
Release of approximately 25 gallons of hydraulic fluid from a vehicle on the roadway. IRA
activities conducted. RAO A1 statement submitted July 11, 1994
Release of an unknown volume of an unknown chemical from a UPS box. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on July 29, 1997.
Reportable release of thallium (13.1 mg/kg), antimony (87.7 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene
(1500 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene (1400 mg/kg), chromium (4900 mg/kg), and
benzo(a)anthracene (1100 mg/kg) in soil; and C9-C18 aliphatic hydrocarbons (560 mg/L),
C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons (430 mg/L), and C19-C36 aliphatic hydrocarbons (190
mg/L) in groundwater. RAO B1 submitted on November 1, 2001.
Release of approximately 25 gallons of diesel fuel onto the roadway from a vehicle fuel
tank. IRA activities conducted. RAO A1 submitted on August 31, 1995.
Reportable release of PAHs (4 mg/kg) in soil. URAM CS submitted on August 18, 2000.
Release of approximately 15 gallons of hydraulic oil from a hose. RAO A1 submitted on
January 17, 2012.
Release of approximately 10 gallons of diesel fuel from an unknown source. IRA activities
conducted. IRA CS and RAO A1 submitted on February 22, 2002.
Release of approximately 15 gallons of diesel fuel. IRA activities conducted. RAO A1
submitted on March 23, 2005.
Release of approximately 20 gallons of diesel fuel from a vehicle. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 submitted on February 1, 2007.
Release of approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel from a vehicle saddle tank. IRA
activities conducted. RAO A2 submitted on December 29, 2006.
Release of approximately 50 gallons of diesel fuel. IRA activities conducted. RAO A2
submitted on April 17, 2007.
Release of approximately 20 gallons of diesel fuel from a vehicle saddle tank. IRA
activities conducted. RAO A1 submitted on November 13, 2008.
RAO-A2
RAO-A1
RAO-A2
RAO-B1
RAO-A1
URAM
RAO-A1
RAO-A1
RAO-A1
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-A1
Sheet 3 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
EDR Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
D13
24
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0029249
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0029627
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0029969
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0030288
G7-G12, H9H13
22
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0030413
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0030423
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0030493
D12
21
15
CSX International
100
Cambridge Street
3-0031122
Cambridge Street
and Soldiers Field
Road
Soldiers Field Road
@River Street
Database /
Source
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
D13
74
4
Parcel 1C and 1D
D13
23
1
Boston Edison Cable
329 510
D13
24
5
No Location Aid
52
Cambridge Street
3-0020882
E14
25
18
No Location Aid
400
Soldiers Field Road
3-0031784
E13
26
23
MM 130/Toll
Administrator Building
Beacon Park
3-0011415
LUST,
RELEASE
G13
27
46
Intersecyion Western
Ave
1
Soldiers Field Road
3-0022182
RELEASE,
SHWS
J16
28
47
Newell Boathouse
65
Soldiers Field Road
3-0014238
LUST,
RELEASE
500
Soldiers Field Road
3-0026896
SHWS,
RELEASE
500
Soldiers Field Road
3-0025058
SHWS,
RELEASE
3-0019635
3-002989
SHWS,
RELEASE
SHWS,
RELEASE
LUST,
RELEASE,
SHWS
C13
29
2
Genzyme Expansion
Phase 2
C13
29
9
No Location Aid
F2
32
112
176
Lincoln Street
3-0013220
SHWS,
RELEASE
G3
34
87
24
Blaine Street
3-0015852
RELEASE,
LAST
Notes / Regulatory Information
Regulatory
Status
Release of approximately 30 gallons of diesel fuel from a vehicle fuel tank. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. RAO A2 submitted on May 2, 2010.
Release of approximately 80 gallons of diesel fuel from a railroad car. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. RAO A2 submitted on February 8, 2011.
Release of approximately 50 gallons of hydraulic oil from a crane fuel line. IRA activities
RAO-A1
conducted. RAO A1 submitted on May 13, 2011.
Release of approximately 25 gallons of diesel fuel from a refrigeration unit. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. IRA CS and RAO A2 submitted July 30, 2012.
Reportable concentrations of oil and/or hazardous materials in soil and groundwater were
discovered during an initial environmental site assessment in 2011/2012. The Phase I
Initial Site Investigation and Tier II classification was submitted on November 2, 2012. A
Phase II
Phase II Scope of Work was submitted June 2013. Proposed work includes collection and
analysis of soil and groundwater samples, installation of additional monitoring wells, and
soil vapor sampling.
Release of approximately 35 gallons of diesel fuel. IRA activities conducted. RAO A1
RAO-A1
submitted on January 10, 2012.
Release of approximately 20 gallons of hydraulic oil from a construction vehicle. IRA
RAO-A2
activities conducted. RAO A2 submitted on April 2, 2012.
Release of approximately 20 gallons of hydraulic oil from an industrial line. IRA activities
RAO-A2
conducted. RAO A2 submitted on November 27, 2012.
A limited subsurface investigation was conducted in conjunction with a real estate
Tier II, Phase
diligence prior to Harvard purchasing the property. Petroleum impacted soil was detected
IV
during the limited subsurface investifation.
Release of an unknown volume of cable oil from an underground electrical distribution
RAO-A2
cable line beneath a roadway. RAO A2 statement submitted on January 15, 1990.
Detections of C11-C22 and C9-C18 hydrocarbons in soil. Granted Downgradient Property
DPS
Status (DPS) on June 13, 2001.
A release of oil to soil from UST piping during UST removal activities. IRA activities
conducted. IRA CS and RAO A2 statement submitted on March 28, 2014
During UST removal headspace screening of soil was conducted using a PID, which
indicated readinsg of up to 640 ppm. IRA activities conducted. IRA CS submitted on
October 3, 1994. RAO A2 statement submitted on August 3, 1994.
Reportable quantities of napthalene (11 mg/kg) and TPH (1200 mg/kg) detected in soil.
RAO B1 statement submitted on October 4, 2002.
During UST removal headspace screening of soil was conducted using a PID, which
registered readings of over 100 ppm. Cause of PID reading was due to gasoline and
diesel fuel. Soil was removed off property to an off-site asphalt batching facility. IRA CS
submitted on November 11, 1996 and RAO A2 statement submitted on March 26, 1997.
Reportable quantities of lead (710 mg/kg), arsenic (28 mg/kg),napthalene (21 mg/kg),
benzo(a)anthracene (28 mg/kg), indeno(1,2,3-CD)pyrene (15 mg/kg), TPH (4100 mg/kg),
benzo(b)fluoranthene (29 mg/kg), chrysene (23 mg/kg), phenol (3.9 mg/kg), and
benzo(a)pyrene (25 mg/kg) detected in soil. RAM CS statement submitted on April 20,
2009. RAO C2 statement and Tier 2 Classification on June 23, 2008.
Release of approximately 20 gallons of hydraulic fluid from a vehicle. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A1 statement submitted on August 11, 2005.
Detection of dichloroethene in groundwater. RAM activities conducted and RAM CS
submitted on October 12, 2000. Granted Downgradient Property Status (DPS) on October
14, 2003. Investigations at the site and historical research/file reviews indicate several
potential upgradient sources located southwest of the property.
Release of approximately 75 gallons of fuel oil from a residential AST. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on March 4, 1998.
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-B1
RAO-A2
Phase IV C2
RAO-A1
DPS
RAO-A2
Sheet 4 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
EDR Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
Database /
Source
119
Braintree Street
3-0002097
SHWS,
RELEASE
67
83-89
Braintree Street
3-0026177
SHWS,
RELEASE
37
67
83-89
Braintree Street
3-0024367
SHWS,
RELEASE
G4
39
63
43
Braintree Street
3-0029345
SHWS,
RELEASE
G4
40
86
40
Braintree Street @
Wilton Terrace
3-0002156
SHWS,
RELEASE
G6
41
62
356
Cambridge Street
3-0024333
SHWS,
RELEASE
H6
42
73
14-20
Linden Street
3-0004462
SHWS,
RELEASE
H10
43
101
76
Ashford Street
3-0024669
SHWS,
RELEASE
H10
44
100
80-110
Ashford Street
3-0020095
SHWS,
RELEASE
I11
45
98
100
Ashford Street
3-0011811
SHWS,
RELEASE
I11
46
94
Boston University
120
Ashford Street
I11
46
95
Boston University
Physical Plant
120
Ashford Street
I11
46
96
Boston University
120
Ashford Street
G3
35
71
G4
37
G4
Industrial Property
Commercial Building
Jack Young Company
Inc.
Consolidated Machine
Corporation
SHWS,
RELEASE
RCRA
MAD985287358 Generator, US
AIRS
3-0001487
3-0024159
SHWS,
RELEASE
Notes / Regulatory Information
Regulatory
Status
Phase I Limited Site Investigation Report submitted on December 15, 1989 identified
CVOCs present in soil and groundwater at the site. The investigation identified three
possible disposal sites located upgradient (southeast) of the property, including a former
DPS
laundry facility. Subsurface investigation concluded that contamination likely migrated to
the site via underground utilities and bedding. Downgradient Property Status granted on
August 7, 1996.
Detection of approximately 2 inches of NAPL reported on August 28, 2006. IRA activities
conducted included gauging of groundwater monitoring wells, installation of additional
RAONR (linked
wells, and collection and fingerprint analysis of the LNAPL. RAM Plan and IRA CS
to 3-24367)
submitted on May 14, 2007. Linked to RTN 3-0024367.
Detection of LNAPL in on-site groundwater monitoring wells. Additional investigations
conducted reported a release of oil from a leaking UST at the property abutting the site to
the south, with the impacted well located ~50 feet from the property boundary. Fingerprint
DPS
analysis of the LNAPL was consistent with the material released from the LUST.
Downgradient Property Status granted.
Detections of C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons (220 mg/kg), C5-C8 aliphatic hydrocarbons
(290 mg/kg), C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons (2300 mg/kg), and napthalene (4.5 mg/kg) in
soil reported on June 22, 2010. RAO B1 statement submitted on November 5, 2010.
RAO-B1
Based on regulatory status, this release is not likely to impact subsurface conditions at the
Site.
Property listed as a valid transition site on April 15, 1989. DEP determined No Further
DEP NFA
Action required for the listing on April 30, 1996.
Detection of aromatic hydrocarbons C11-C22 at 590 ppm which. Condition of No
Significant Risk was determined for the site and RAO B1 statement was submitted on
RAO-B1
October 13, 2004.
Site listed as a Valid Transition Site on October 1, 1993. Detection of low levels of VOCs
in soils during the removal of a 500-gallon gasoline UST. Presence of low levels (nonreportable) of PCBs in soil samples collected from the base of a pole-mounted utility
RAO B1
transformer. RAO B1 statement submitted on December 23, 2002. Based on the
regulatory status and concentrations of contaminants reported, this property is not likely to
impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
Reportable concentrations of lead, copper, chromium, and nickel detected in soil. RAO
A2 statement submitted on February 23, 2006. Based on the non-migratory nature of the
RAO-A2
COCs, the distance relative to the Site, and the regulatory status, this release is not likely
to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
Reportable concentrations of lead, TPH, benzo(a)anthrancene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benxo(b)fluoranthene, and benxo(g,h,i)perylene in soil. RAM activities conducted. Tier II
classification. RAO A2 statement submitted on September 18, 2002. Based on regulatory
RAO-A2
status and non-migratory nature of the COCs, this release is unlikely to impact subsurface
conditions at the Site.
Detection of approximately 16 inches of petroleum reported on November 3, 1994. IRA
activities conducted. Linked to RTN 3-11860 on March 16, 1996.
RAONR (linked
to 3-11860)
Release of an unknown material. Listed as a valid transition site on January 15, 1990.
RAO
SQG. Waste produced includes spent halogenated solvents, waste oil and/or universal
waste. No violations noted in the database.
SQG
Release of approximately 15 gallons of hydraulic oil from a pipeline. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A1 statement submitted on October 15, 2004. Based on the regulatory
status and nature of the release, it is not expected to impact subsurface conditions at the
Site.
RAO-A1
Sheet 5 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
EDR Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
Database /
Source
Notes / Regulatory Information
Regulatory
Status
I11
46
96
Boston University
120
Ashford Street
3-0026255
SHWS,
RELEASE
Release of approximately 25 gallons of #2 fuel oil reported on September 26, 2006. IRA
activities conducted. IRA CS and RAO A2 statement submitted on November 28, 2006.
Based on the regulatory status and nature of the release, it is not expected to impact
subsurface conditions at the Site.
RAO-A2
I12
47
88
Nickerson Field
285
Babcock Street
3-0027853
SHWS,
RELEASE,
SPILLS
Reportable concentrations of methylene chloride (.85 mg/kg), chromium (55.7 mg/kg) and
arsenic (20.4 mg/kg) in soil. RAM activities conducted. RAM CS and RAO A2 statement
submitted on August 18, 2009. Based on regulatory status and non-migratory nature of
the COCs, this release is unlikely to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
RAO-A2
I12
47
89
Road Surface
300
Babcock Street
3-0020066
I12
47
89
Road Surface
300
Babcock Street
3-0024681
K16
48
68
Boston University
Amory Street
834-846
Commonwealth Ave
3-0014187
K17
49
61
MTA Pump House
Commonwealth Ave
3-0022804
K17
49
64
Former Fuller Cadillac
Building
808
Commonwealth Ave
3-0013296
K17
49
64
Former Fuller Cadillac
Building
808
Commonwealth Ave
3-0015327
K17
49
65
Corner of Essex Street
808
Commonwealth Ave
3-0014855
B13
50
115
SW Corner Parcel II
Western Ave &
Soldiers Field Road
3-0020097
F9
52
59
Merit Gasoline Station
219
Cambridge Street
3-0010995
F9
52
59
Merit Gasoline Station
219
Cambridge Street
3-0023062
SHWS,
RELEASE,
LUST
Release of gasoline from a pipeline reported on August 6, 2003. IRA activities conducted
and IRA CS submitted on January 21, 2004. RAO A2 statement submitted on March 10,
2004. Not expected to impact subsurface conditons at the Site.
RAO-A2
F9
52
59
Merit Gasoline Station
219
Cambridge Street
3-0030446
SHWS,
RELEASE
Release of approximately 7 gallons of gasoline from a vehicle. Reported on November
10, 2011 at which time oral approval of IRA activities was granted. RAO A2 statement
submitted on December 13, 2011. Based on regulatory status, release is not expected to
impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
RAO-A1
F9
52
59
Merit Gasoline Station
219
Cambridge Street
3-0029388
SHWS,
RELEASE,
LUST
Release of approximately 1 gallon of diesel fuel from a LUST reported on July 20, 2010.
RAO A1 statement submitted on September 7, 2010. Based on the nature of the release
and regulatory status, it is not expected to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
RAO-A1
Release of approximately 25 gallons of hydraulic fluid from a vehicle on the roadway. IRA
activities conducted. RAO A1 statement submitted January 2, 2001. Based on the nature
RAO-A1
of the release and regulatory status, this release is not expected to impact subsurface
conditions at the Site.
Release of approximately 60 gallons of #2 fuel oil from a pipeline. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on March 9, 2006. Based on the nature of the
SHWS,
RAO-A2
RELEASE release and regulatory status, this release is not expected to impact subsurface conditions
at the Site.
Release of #2 fuel oil from a LUST reported on September 3, 1996. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on July 29, 1999. Based on the nature of the
RELEASE,
RAO-A2
release and regulatory status, this release is not expected to impact subsurface conditions
LUST
at the Site.
Release of approximately 500 gallons of dielectric oil from a pipeline on the roadway
reported on April 22, 2003. IRA activities conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on
SHWS,
RAO-A2
July 7, 2003. Based on the nature of the release and regulatory status, this release is not
RELEASE
expected to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
Release of approximately 315 gallons of fuel oil from a vehicle pipeline onto a paved
parking lot. Reported on December 28, 1995 at which time oral approval for IRA activities
LUST, SHWS,
granted. RAO A2 statement submitted on January 7, 1997. Based on the nature of the
RAO A-2
RELEASE
release and regulatory status, this release is not expected to impact subsurface conditions
at the Site.
Release of fuel oil #4 from a commercial LUST reportedon July 23, 1997. IRA activities
LUST, SHWS,
RAONR (linked
conducted and IRA CS submitted on September 26, 1997. Linked to RTN 3-0014855 on
RELEASE
to 3-0014855)
February 27, 1998.
SHWS,
Reportable concentration of fuel oil #4 (7,800 mg/kg) in soil. Classified a Tier 2 site on
RAO-A2
RELEASE
February 27, 1998. RAO A2 statement submitted on February 29, 2000.
Detection of petroleum-related compounds in soil, reported on October 30, 2000. RAO B1
SHWS,
statement submittedon October 30, 2001. Based on regulatory status, this release is not
RAO-B1
RELEASE
expected to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
Detection of gasoline from a LUST reported on May 13, 1994 during removal of a UST.
SHWS,
IRA activities conducted which included soil excavation and removal of UST. RAO A2
RAO-A2
RELEASE,
statement submitted December 24, 1997. Based on regulatory status, this release is not
LUST
expected to impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
SHWS,
RELEASE
Sheet 6 of 6
Table 2 - List of Sites with MCP Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs)
Map
Coordinates
Map ID
EDR Map ID
Site Name
Street
Number
Street
Database ID
Number
Database /
Source
F9
52
59
Merit Gasoline Station
219
Cambridge Street
3-0004216
SHWS,
RELEASE
F6
53
76
Boston Edison Station
329
350
Lincoln Street
3-0019613
SHWS,
RELEASE
F6
53
76
Boston Edison Station
329
350
Lincoln Street
3-0021244
SHWS,
RELEASE
F6
53
76
Boston Edison Station
329
350
Lincoln Street
3-0021714
SHWS,
RELEASE
F6
53
76
Boston Edison Station
329
350
Lincoln Street
3-0023177
SHWS,
RELEASE
F6
53
77
Boston Edison Station
329
350
Lincoln Street
3-0010337
SHWS,
RELEASE
Listing within Site boundaries
Listing in close proximity to Site boundaries, unlikely to affect Site conditions
Listing in close proximity to Site boundaries, could impact Site conditions
Notes / Regulatory Information
Detection of VOCs at a gas station property. Listed as a valid transition site on January
15, 1993. RAO A2 statement submitted on January 30, 1997. Based on the nature of the
release and regulatory status, it is not expected to impact subsurface conditions at the
Site.
Release of approximately 90 gallons of oil from a transformer reported on June 10, 2000.
IRA activities conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on July 19, 2000. Based on the
nature of release and regulatory status, this release is not likely to impact subsurface
conditions at the Site.
Detection of mineral oil (9250 ppm) from a leaking transformer. RAO A2 statement
submitted on November 14, 2001. Based on the relative downgradient location of the
property and regulatory status, this release is not likely to impact subsurface conditions at
the Site.
Release of approximately 1,000 gallons of oil from a transformer reported on April 26,
2002. IRA acitivities conducted. IRA CS submitted on June 7, 2002 and RAO A2
statement submitted on August 26, 2002. Based on the relative downgradient location of
the property and regulatory status, this release is not likely to impact subsurface
conditions at the Site.
Detection of PCBs (2.1 ppm) and MODF (19500 ppm) from a leaking transformer. RAO
A2 statement submitted on August 15, 2003. Based on the relative downgradient location
of the property and regulatory status, this release is not likely to impact subsurface
conditions at the Site.
Release of approximately 60 gallons of mineral oil from a transformer. IRA activities
conducted. RAO A2 statement submitted on June 28, 1994. Based on the relative
downgradient location of the property and regulatory status, this release is not likely to
impact subsurface conditions at the Site.
Regulatory
Status
RAO A-2
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
RAO-A2
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9
Supplemental Information, Alternatives Development and
Preliminary Screening of Alternatives
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Table of Contents
1.0
Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 9-1
2.0
Existing Condition of Viaduct and I-90 Interchange ....................................................... 9-1
2.1
I-90 Interchange ........................................................................................................... 9-1
2.2
Viaduct .......................................................................................................................... 9-3
3.0
Project Alternatives........................................................................................................... 9-4
3.1
Project Alternatives – Common Elements .................................................................... 9-5
3.1.1
I-90 Interstate Highway Re-alignment ................................................................. 9-5
3.1.2
I-90 Viaduct Reconstruction ................................................................................. 9-5
3.1.3
West Station Commuter Rail Station and Commuter Rail Layover Yard ............. 9-6
3.1.4
Replacement of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over I-90 ............................... 9-8
3.1.5
Soldiers Field Road Re-alignment ......................................................................... 9-8
3.2
Cambridge Street and I-90 Interchange ....................................................................... 9-9
3.2.1
Cambridge Street ................................................................................................... 9-9
3.2.2
I-90 Interchange ................................................................................................... 9-11
3.3 Beacon Park Yards and West Station............................................................................... 9-24
3.3.1 Beacon Park Yards ................................................................................................ 9-24
3.3.2 West Station .......................................................................................................... 9-24
4.0
Alternative Modes of Transportation – Multi-Modal Connectivity ............................... 9-25
5.0
Traffic – Existing and Future Conditions ....................................................................... 9-25
6.0
Future Development in the Project Area ........................................................................ 9-25
7.0
Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 9-26
8.0
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................. 9-27
8.1
Highway ...................................................................................................................... 9-27
8.1.1 Microscale Analysis .................................................................................................. 9-27
8.1.2 Mesoscale Analysis ................................................................................................... 9-27
8.2 Transit ......................................................................................................................... 9-28
9.0
Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Assessment ........................................................ 9-28
10.0 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................................... 9-29
11.0 Open Space and Recreational Resources........................................................................ 9-29
12.0 Stormwater Management and Impaired Waters ............................................................ 9-29
13.0 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 9-30
14.0 Construction Phasing...................................................................................................... 9-30
15.0 Alternatives Analysis Criteria and Preliminary Screening of Project Alternatives ........ 9-31
15.1 Methodology................................................................................................................ 9-32
15.2 Screening Criteria........................................................................................................ 9-33
15.2.1 Meets Purpose and Need ..................................................................................... 9-33
15.2.2 Multi-Modal Connectivity.................................................................................... 9-33
15.2.3 Traffic Operation ................................................................................................. 9-34
15.2.4 Environmental ..................................................................................................... 9-36
15.2.5 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 9-39
15.2.6 Construction ........................................................................................................9-40
15.2.7 Cost/Schedule ......................................................................................................9-40
i
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
ii
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
1.0
Project Site
The Interstate 90 (I-90) Allston Interchange Project is located in the Allston section of
the City of Boston. The project site, totaling approximately 150 acres, includes Beacon
Park Yards (BPY), a 22.4-acre site historically used as a freight rail yard and intermodal
terminal for CSX Transportation, Inc. (and preceding railroads), and the Allston
Interchange on I-90. The I-90 Allston Interchange includes Exit 18 (eastbound entrance
and westbound exit), Exit 19 (Allston toll plaza) and Exit 20 (eastbound exit and
westbound entrance).
I-90 intersects with Cambridge Street at the interchange. Cambridge Street provides
connections to Allston and Brighton in Boston, the City of Cambridge across the Charles
River and intersects with the Charles River parkways, Soldiers Field Road in Boston and
Memorial Drive in Cambridge. The interchange provides access to and from I-90 for
areas of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge and communities to the west including Arlington
and Watertown.
BPY is located on the Framingham/Worcester Line between the I-90 Allston Toll Plaza
to the north and the Framingham/Worcester Line to the south. The CSXT freight and
intermodal functions have been relocated to central Massachusetts.
The entire project site is currently owned by Harvard University and a permanent
transportation easement is retained over the land by MassDOT.
2.0
Existing Condition of Viaduct and I-90 Interchange
2.1 I-90 INTERCHANGE
The existing I-90 Allston Interchange dates from the original construction of the Boston
Extension of the Massachusetts Turnpike in the 1960s. The conditions in the
interchange do not meet current interstate highway design standards.
I-90 carries four travel lanes in the eastbound direction and four travel lanes in the
westbound direction both east and west of the I-90 interchange. Within the interchange,
the number of lanes in the eastbound direction and in the westbound direction
decreases to three. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) guidelines stipulate that the number of travel lanes should not decrease for
localized volume reductions that frequently occur at interchanges due to exiting ramp
traffic, but should remain constant within and through interchanges. The number of
travel lanes in the eastbound direction within the interchange cannot be increased
because the position of piers that support a ramp overpassing I-90 limits the space that
is available. The number of lanes in the westbound direction could be increased to four
if the roadway is widened to the limits of existing retaining walls that ultimately
constrain the available space.
9-1
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
I-90 westbound traffic currently passes between the I-90 eastbound exit bridge piers,
located just west of the existing I-90 toll plaza, with two travel lanes passing on each
side just prior to the roadway narrowing to three travel lanes. Currently the piers are
located within narrow curbed medians, which are unacceptable safety hazards on open
interstate highways. Construction of a narrow, double-faced concrete barrier with
impact attenuation to protect the pier would be possible after removal of the toll plaza,
but the split between interstate through lanes traveling in the same direction would be
unusual and is not recommended.
The westbound I-90 exit ramp to Cambridge Street carries two travel lanes, but the exit
from I-90 is improperly designed and as a result, increases safety hazards. Specifically,
I-90 provides no separate lane for decelerating traffic on the approach to the exit, which
violates AASHTO design requirements. A deceleration lane safely segregates exiting
traffic from through traffic as the exiting traffic slows on the ramp approach. Without
the deceleration lane, I-90 is operationally deficient and unsafe at this location. I-90
should include a separate 440 foot long (minimum) deceleration lane for this exit. In
addition, a two-lane exit requires two travel lanes on the main highway that safely
diverge traffic without conflict with other traffic continuing through. I-90 westbound on
the exit approach carries only four travel lanes, thereby leading to a crossing maneuver
conflict between the right-most of the four I-90 westbound through traffic lanes with the
left-most of the two exiting lanes.
The entrance ramp that originates from Cambridge Street and connects to I-90
eastbound operates as a two-lane ramp, but the entrance ramp to I-90 is improperly
designed and as a result, increases safety hazards. Specifically, the left-most of the two
ramp lanes entering I-90 connects directly with the right-most of the three I-90
eastbound lanes, leading to a conflict between entering and through traffic. A separate
1000 foot long (minimum) lane for acceleration and merging should be provided on the
far right of the I-90 section to eliminate this safety deficiency.
The same design deficiency described above occurs at the I-90 westbound entrance
ramp.
The I-90 eastbound exit destined for Cambridge Street diverges from the I-90 travel
lanes on the left side. This design is not recommended by AASHTO because the exit is
made from the high speed travel lane on the left which introduces a safety hazard due to
the differential in travel speeds. This safety concern is minimized with a design that
moves the exit lane to the right. Reconstruction of the interchange configuration is
required to move the exit to the right side.
The left and right shoulder widths and lateral offsets between the shoulders and
adjacent features higher than 6 inches in elevation on I-90 are not compliant with
current AASHTO interstate requirements.
9-2
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
2.2 VIADUCT
The following is a summary of the overall condition of the viaduct based on the latest
inspection report and field observations.
Deck
The exposed concrete deck is in poor condition with numerous areas of cracking,
potholes and patched areas.
Superstructure
The longitudinal stringers (beams) exhibit a deteriorated, faded and chalky paint system
with areas of peeling paint. There are areas of light to moderate rusting to the bottom
flanges throughout with several areas of localized corrosion (pitting and steel
delamination) along the exterior beam bottom flanges (mainly along the top face). The
bottom flanges along the centerline median have typically a 1/8-inch section loss along
their entire length with up to 3/16-inch section loss at random locations.
The stringer beam webs have moderate corrosion with rusting and up to 1/16-inch
pitting that measures full height on each face of the beams, at several of the girder
connections.
The steel cross girders, which transfer the loads from the stringers to the substructure,
are considered fracture critical members. Many of the cross girders have losses to the
underside of the top flanges, webs and bottom flanges, with the worst cases usually
occurring along the interior faces between cross girders, especially below the median
longitudinal joint. There are numerous repairs (partial length repair plates/angles,
bolted and/or welded) to the bottom flanges and lower web. There are several areas that
have continued to deteriorate with areas of section loss (up to 100%, holes) that have
formed at the ends of the repair plates in the lower webs or that have not been repaired.
The interior vertical web stiffeners typically have deep pitting and/or holes through the
bottom measuring up to 3-inches high. Several of the stiffeners have been altered (a few
locations have compromised the continuity of the stiffener plates) to allow for the
continuation of repairs to the lower portion of the webs.
The overall superstructure exhibits extensive areas of deterioration to the deck. The
majority of the stringers (beams) are in satisfactory condition with more advanced
deterioration at locations of higher exposure such as under the median. The stringer
ends for the majority of the structure are protected from higher exposure by the steel
cross girders that the stringers frame into. Nearly all of the cross girders have measured
section loss along portions of their length. Some of these girders have undergone
repairs/strengthening of the deteriorated areas.
9-3
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Substructure
The columns have areas of random and map cracking, hollow areas, staining, scattered
spalls and areas with exposed reinforcement. Many of the columns have also been
patched (many with a skim coat of shotcrete), which typically exhibit map cracking and
rust staining. In some areas where the top of the columns are deteriorated, the spalls
have caused the partial undermining of the bearing base plate. The concrete column
bent piers are generally in fair to satisfactory condition. There are areas of cracking,
hollow areas, incipient spalling, patched areas, efflorescence and staining throughout.
The heaviest deterioration occurs at the center of the pier which corresponds to the open
longitudinal median joint above.
Both abutment breastwalls have vertical hairline cracks and map cracking throughout.
Some of the deterioration extends to the bridge seat area with localized hollow areas.
The abutment backwalls have scattered hairline to narrow vertical cracks, small areas of
delaminated concrete (popouts) and areas of light to moderate scaling. There are
scattered spalled areas just below the deck joint armor at the East Abutment and a few
spalls at the West Abutment.
Most of the concrete columns with the steel cross girders have previously undergone
repairs and/or patching over large areas. The abutments are generally in satisfactory
condition. The concrete pier bents continue to deteriorate but the condition has not
changed significantly over the past few inspection cycles.
3.0
Project Alternatives
MassDOT has not currently identified a preferred alternative for the I-90 Allston
Interchange Project. MassDOT will include an alternatives analysis in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in which alternatives for the project will be
evaluated, including construction of commuter rail layover facilities and West Station.
To date, MassDOT has identified a total of sixteen (16) alternative interchange designs.
The project includes seven (7) significant transportation components: I-90 interstate
highway re-alignment; I-90 interstate viaduct reconstruction; new I-90 interchange
ramps; Cambridge Street reconstruction; West Station commuter rail station, twentyeight (28) commuter rail layover yard alternatives, and ancillary facilities; replacement
of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I-90 west of Cambridge Street, and Soldiers Field
Road re-alignment. Although the final development of each of the seven components
will involve consideration of design variations, only the I-90 interchange ramps
component and the Cambridge Street reconstruction component present significantly
different design concepts to warrant a formal alternatives analysis.
For all alternatives, equal consideration for the accommodation of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and public transportation is required. To that end, the evaluation of
alternatives will consider City of Boston standard sidewalks on Cambridge Street and on
9-4
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
other full access roadways, cycle tracks (separated bike lanes) on Cambridge Street and
bike lanes on other roadways where cycle tracks may be infeasible, pedestrian and
bicycle access to West Station from the north and the south, with public transportation
access available from the north, and bus stops with locations coordinated with City of
Boston Transportation Department and MassDOT. In addition, the analysis will
consider improvements in pedestrian and bicycle connectivity with the Paul Dudley
White Bike Path along the Charles River and Allston neighborhoods.
3.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES – COMMON ELEMENTS
Five project components, described as follows, do not present significant variation
among alternatives, and they are also independent of the remaining two components
that have significant variation.
3.1.1
I-90 Interstate Highway Re-alignment
After the existing toll booths are removed and electronic tolling is in operation, I-90
north of the existing discontinued BPY will be relocated on a new, large radius curving
alignment further to the south of its current location and into the most northerly portion
of the former railroad yard. Within the proposed interchange, between the initial exit
ramp and the subsequent entrance ramp in both directions, I-90 will carry three travel
lanes and shoulders.
One of the four travel lanes approaching the proposed interchange from each direction
will be dropped at each of the two new exit ramps with the fourth lane in each direction
added back to the interstate at the new entrance ramps. The I-90 median will consist of
an inside shoulder in each direction, a concrete barrier with offsets on each side, and a
capped median area between the two barriers reserved for the future construction (by
others) of columns to support future air-rights structures over the interstate.
3.1.2
I-90 Viaduct Reconstruction
Due to advanced deterioration to both the concrete substructure and the steel
superstructure, the existing viaduct will be completely removed and a new viaduct will
be constructed in the same approximate location including a portion of I-90 westbound
cantilevered over Soldiers Field Road eastbound. I-90 traffic cannot be detoured and
must be maintained within the existing viaduct corridor throughout the construction
period. In addition, the existing railroad lines that are located under the viaduct,
including two commuter rail lines, Grand Junction Railroad, and a spur line to
Houghton Chemical Company, must also be maintained during and after construction.
The idea of removing the viaduct completely and reconstructing I-90 at-grade was not
advanced because the railroad lines already occupy the at-grade location and those
cannot be moved, depressed or elevated.
9-5
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
The idea of depressing I-90 in a shallow tunnel or capped boat section under the
railroad lines was not advanced because the length of I-90 that will need to be
reconstructed to transition from its existing at-grade location east and west of the
project area to an underground alignment within the project area would result in
unacceptable project risk, schedule impact and implementation challenges. Also, this
would require the relocation of the large, gravity MWRA sewer interceptor and drainage
pipes out from the area of the I-90 underground construction and the conversion of
these systems from gravity to pumped facilities would also prohibitively increase the
project scope.
From east to west, the new viaduct will begin at the same location as the existing
easterly abutment and will curve to the south to meet the new re-alignment of I-90,
ending at a new, full height abutment where the new I-90 profile will descend adjacent
to the proposed commuter rail yard. The viaduct width will increase to accommodate
inside shoulders, deceleration and acceleration lanes for the most easterly ramps of the
new I-90 interchange and/or outside shoulders. Any widening of the viaduct is to
enhance safety for existing traffic. The new viaduct will be constructed of similar
materials and in the same span arrangement as the existing structure to facilitate
construction staging.
3.1.3
West Station Commuter Rail Station and Commuter Rail Layover Yard
West Station
MassDOT considered several options to locate the West Station platforms. In opting for
the location proposed herein, MassDOT weighed factors including the distances
between adjacent stations (Boston Landing soon to be built 0.9 miles to the west, and
Yawkey Station 1.3 miles to the east); and the travel-time headways needed to allow the
rail network to operate most effectively. MassDOT also considered neighborhood issues
and determined that locating the station and pedestrian access points furthest to the
east would result in the fewest direct and indirect impacts to the residential
neighborhood containing Wadsworth and Pratt Streets.
MassDOT also considered various options for the station and platform layout, and
determined that a two-platform/four-track arrangement would provide the optimal
arrangement to provide service along the Worcester Branch and future two-track service
along the Grand Junction Branch into Cambridge. Other options that were considered
included a single platform with two tracks, and a two-platform/three track
arrangement. MassDOT also considered platform height options (low, mini-high, and
high types) and is opting for the high platform to best achieve accessibility goals for the
station.
MassDOT will consider options for the architectural and functional design of West
Station itself. It has identified Yawkey Station and JFK Station as models for certain
aspects of the station. Yawkey Station was recently completed and opened to traffic, and
9-6
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
represents the desirable architectural design features for a new commuter rail station.
JFK Station presents a functional similarity in that it serves two platforms and four
tracks, and offers commuters the option to gather on the mezzanine level for an
announcement regarding approaching trains and boarding information.
Commuter Rail Layover Yard
MassDOT proposes to construct sufficient storage track in the general vicinity of the
existing BPY to provide mid-day layover capacity for South Station train consists (a
consist is comprised of a locomotive and passenger cars). During construction of this
new facility, existing commuter rail service through the project must remain
uninterrupted. The layout of the new track will provide storage for 14 to 20 train
consists in a parallel track arrangement.
Adjacent to this storage yard on two parallel tracks to the south, MassDOT proposes to
construct a commuter rail station, West Station, that will be pedestrian and bicycle
accessible from both north of I-90 and south of the railroad tracks. Access by public
transit vehicles will be provided only from the north, over the storage tracks on an
elevated structure that connects with the proposed I-90 interchange. Pedestrians and
bicyclists from the north will access the at-grade station platforms by stair or elevator
from this elevated structure.
Vehicular access must be provided at-grade for rail workers and emergency responders.
Vehicular access at-grade will be provided by an access-controlled driveway that is
located adjacent to the full height abutment at the westerly terminus of the I-90 viaduct.
The driveway will continue north to connect with the proposed local street network.
The South Station Expansion (SSX) DEIR and associated Technical Reports analyzed
the concepts for a layover facility at BPY. MassDOT developed a tiered alternatives
analysis process to identify potential locations to meet the future SSX operational needs.
Initially, MassDOT identified 28 screening alternatives. The preliminary screening
evaluated the ability of those 28 sites to meet the overarching transportation and
program objectives for the SSX project, using criteria such as ease of land acquisition;
effect on operations; and ability to integrate the site into the existing rail and roadway
networks. Of the 28 candidate sites, ten locations were advanced for a more detailed
evaluation. At this level, MassDOT developed conceptual designs and preliminary
operating plans, and identified infrastructure requirements. Most of these top ten
alternatives did not rate well when compared to the more rigorous evaluation criteria of
consistency with adopted plans and zoning; ability to meet location requirements;
railroad operations, environmental impacts; site suitability; and capital improvements.
MassDOT advanced four of these locations to the final evaluation stage. These sites
included BPY, the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) Tow Lot, Widett Circle,
and Readville - Yard 2. However, MassDOT determined that no single site could meet
the physical and operational requirements to fully meet the SSX future layover needs.
9-7
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
MassDOT tested combinations of the sites to determine how to best meet the layover
needs. Ultimately, they determined that a plan that maximized use of the BPY and
Widett Circle sites, in combination with additional capacity at Readville – Yard 2, would
provide the greatest capacity and operational flexibility when compared to all other
scenarios. Based on these findings, MassDOT selected the combination of Widett Circle,
BPY, and Readville – Yard 2 for inclusion as part of the preferred alternative in the SSX
DEIR analysis.
3.1.4
Replacement of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over I-90
Based on preliminary pedestrian and bicycle data significant demand already exists to
maintain a pedestrian and bicycle facility that crosses I-90 immediately west of the
Cambridge Street overpass. The existing pedestrian bridge is non-compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act/Architectural Access Board (ADA/AAB) requirements
for access ramp grades. Due to existing development and significant variation in
topography in the vicinity of this location south of I-90, the new structure will likely
require construction of retaining walls and may require some property taking in order to
comply with accessibility requirements.
3.1.5
Soldiers Field Road Re-alignment
Based on the strong and unanimous urging of the public and Task Force members, and
with support from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), MassDOT is
also proposing to shift a portion of Soldiers Field Road under the proposed viaduct to
increase usable parkland along the river and provide adequate room for the new
bicycle/pedestrian bridge proposed to span Soldiers Field Road. The viaduct would
cantilever over the realigned Soldiers Field Road, ensuring that views of the Charles
River would be unimpeded for vehicular traffic.
The DCR maintains Soldiers Field Road, a four-lane parkway on the southerly bank of
the Charles River that lies within the Charles River Basin Historic District and is listed
in the National and State Registers of Historic Places. Soldiers Field Road highway
characteristics in the vicinity of the project include limited access, narrow 11-foot wide
curbed travel lanes, no shoulders, a narrow curbed median with double-faced guardrail,
guardrail on each side of the roadway, a 10-foot to 12-foot height restriction at
overpasses, and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Within the project area, the right of way
for Soldiers Field Road extends southward from the eastbound roadway and is
approximately defined by a chain link fence adjacent to the I-90 viaduct. On the
opposite side of Soldiers Field Road, the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bike Path is situated
between the westbound roadway guardrail and the bank of the Charles River.
A re-alignment of Soldiers Field Road southward will increase usable open space on the
northerly side, providing separation between the parkway and the Dr. Paul Dudley
White Bike Path. The location within the project where re-alignment is possible begins
9-8
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
west of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge over Soldiers Field Road and ends east of
the Soldiers Field Road underpass at River Street.
The re-alignment involves moving both the eastbound and westbound roadways
southward, with the eastbound roadway positioned under a proposed cantilevered
portion of the new I-90 viaduct. The proposed re-alignment would increase the amount
of open space on the northerly side of Soldiers Field Road along the Charles River. Some
of this new space can be used for the placement of bicycle/pedestrian ramps to access a
new bicycle/pedestrian bridge that will span over Soldiers Field Road and the Houghton
Chemical Company railroad spur line.
Re-positioning all or a portion of Soldiers Field Road under the proposed viaduct was
investigated as a means of further increasing open space on the southerly shore of the
Charles River. Moving more of the roadway under the viaduct requires moving Grand
Junction Railroad further under the viaduct. The most significant obstacle to moving
more of the roadway under the viaduct is the absence of adequate vertical clearance
under the viaduct at the easterly limit of the Soldiers Field Road re-alignment that is
required for the relocated Grand Junction Railroad line to pass.
3.2 CAMBRIDGE STREET AND I-90 INTERCHANGE
3.2.1
Cambridge Street
Three Alternatives under consideration for Cambridge Street reconstruction include a
Two-way Directional Street Alternative and a One-way or Two-way Parallel sSreet
Alternative. With each alternative the objective is to maintain adequate vehicular
capacity while providing traffic calming measures to enhance the pedestrian experience.
Two-way Alternative
The two-way Alternative provides two through lanes in each direction (eastbound and
westbound), turn lanes at intersections (single lane and double lane configurations), a
raised, planted median to accommodate turn lanes at the intersections, a parking lane
on each side of the street, a cycle track buffered three feet from the parking lane in each
direction on Cambridge Street, a full width sidewalk on each side of the street, and a
reserved strip between the sidewalks and cycle tracks for planters, benches, bike racks,
lighting, and other street amenities. Bus stops in their approximate existing locations
are preserved. This fully developed “complete streets” Alternative accommodates all
travel modes and all turning movements at intersections, but results in a wide cross
section.
Travel convenience for all modes in the Two-way Alternative is challenging because the
street width is significant. For instance, crosswalk distances exceed 70 feet at the most
minor intersections and approach 100 feet at the major intersections, even though curb
extensions (bump outs) are proposed. In addition, traffic signal phasing must
accommodate all travel movements as well as separate pedestrian phases, all of which
9-9
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
results in longer cycles and the subsequent need to provide long queue storage lanes for
vehicles on intersection approaches when the signal is red. The volume and multiple
turning movements of vehicular traffic passing through the intersections introduce
delay and inconvenience for all travel modes.
One-way Parallel Street Alternative
The One-way Street Alternative requires two, parallel, one-way streets separated by the
width of a city block, but the width of the individual streets is significantly less than the
Two-way Alternative. Each one-way street requires only two vehicular travel lanes and
no separate turn lanes. The one-way street section on the original Cambridge Street
includes two travel lanes in the westbound direction, a parking lane on the existing
developed northerly side of the street, a cycle track westbound buffered from the
parking lane, a full width sidewalk on both sides of the street, and a reserved strip
between the northerly sidewalk and cycle track for planters, benches, bike racks,
lighting, and other street amenities.
The street cross-section on the parallel, one-way street eastbound includes two travel
lanes, no turn lanes, a cycle track eastbound buffered from the travel lane and a full
width sidewalk on the southerly side of the street. Because the land between the parallel
streets will be undeveloped at the conclusion of the project, the parking lanes are not
included and the sidewalk on the northerly side of the street is not included. The
southerly side of the one-way street carries the sidewalk and cycle track because these
features connect to the Cambridge Street bridge over I-90 on the southerly side.
The One-way Parallel Street Alternative reduces delay and improves convenience for all
modes of travel in comparison to the Two-way Alternative. The streets carry only two
travel lanes and no turn lanes are needed, resulting in crosswalk lengths less than 30
feet at intersections. Traffic signal phasing is simplified in comparison to the Two-way
Alternative because several movements are removed, and as a result, more traffic may
pass through the intersections on each cycle. No separate right turn lanes are needed,
thereby reducing conflicts with bicycle traffic.
Two-way Parallel Street Alternative
Similar to the One-Way Parallel Street Alternative, the Two-way Parallel Street
Alternative includes two, parallel, two-way streets separated by the width of a city block
(approximately 250-feet), but the width of the individual streets is significantly less than
the Two-way Alternative.
Cambridge Street and the parallel two-way street require three vehicular travel lanes
with separate turn lanes. The two-way street section on the original Cambridge Street
includes two travel lanes in the westbound direction and one travel lane in the
eastbound direction, parking lanes on the northerly and southerly sides of the street,
cycle tracks both westbound and eastbound buffered from the parking lane, a full width
sidewalk on both sides of the street, and a reserved strip between the sidewalks and
9-10
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
cycle tracks for planters, benches, bike racks, lighting, and other street amenities. The
two-way street section on the Parallel Road south of Cambridge Street includes two
travel lanes in the eastbound direction and one travel lane in the westbound direction
with a separate turning lane at certain intersections, no parking lanes, cycle tracks both
westbound and eastbound buffered from the parking lane, a full width sidewalk on both
sides of the street, and a reserved strip between the sidewalks and cycle tracks for
planters, benches, bike racks, lighting, and other street amenities.
As with the One-way Alternative, the Two-way Parallel Street Alternative reduces delay
and improves convenience for all modes of travel in comparison to the Two-way
Alternative. The Two-Way Parallel Street Alternative reduces the width of Cambridge
Street resulting in shorter pedestrian crossing distances. The reduction in right turn
volumes on Cambridge Street eastbound provide opportunities to incorporate
concurrent pedestrian phasing at four of the seven signals on Cambridge Street. The
incorporation of the two-way parallel street to the south results in improved operations
and reduced queues at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Soldiers Field Road.
3.2.2
I-90 Interchange
The I-90 interchange is comprised of the exits and entrances to and from I-90, the ramp
and/or street connections (connectors) to and from the I-90 exits and entrances, and
the terminal locations where the connectors end on local city streets. Cambridge Street
and the intersection at River Street are the terminal locations for the existing I-90
interchange. As a result of the limited number of existing terminals, traffic congestion
and queues are significant on these intersection approaches under exiting conditions.
For all proposed interchange alternatives, the current landowner, the City of Boston and
many local interest groups envision the space between I-90 and Cambridge Street as
highly developable land that should be accessed by a new, local street grid. The
proposed I-90 interchange should ideally minimize its footprint within this space and fit
into the new street pattern.
However, because I-90, Cambridge Street, and Soldiers Field Road, which are all high
traffic volume carriers, border the street grid, high volumes of traffic from these
transportation facilities can be expected to pass through the main collectors of these
connector roadways. Cambridge Street will remain the principal terminal location for
the interchange connectors, with an additional connection proposed at Soldiers Field
Road eastbound and another connection proposed at the Soldiers Field Road west
frontage roadway just north of the River Street intersection.
Cambridge Street remains the principal terminal location for the interchange connectors
because it borders the entire northerly project limit and is an existing principal arterial
carrying traffic to the east, into Cambridge, and to the west, into Allston/Brighton.
Soldiers Field Road borders the entire easterly project limit, but several factors limit its
attractiveness as a significant terminal location. Soldiers Field Road transitions to a
9-11
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
grade-separated configuration on the approach to the River Street intersection to allow
through traffic to continue north/west and south/east, underpassing River Street
without having to travel through a traffic signal. An entrance ramp and an exit ramp
split from the Soldiers Field Road through lanes several hundred feet to the south/east
of the River Street underpass, thereby establishing the most northerly/westerly
boundary where potential new terminals can be located.
Further to the south/east, the I-90 viaduct constrains the available space where ramps
to and from the highway can potentially connect to Soldiers Field Road. The length of
Soldiers Field Road between these two boundaries is not significant. Multiple
connections in close proximity to each other on Soldiers Field Road will introduce
merging and/or diverging movements that cannot be safely accommodated within the
available space. The introduction of signalized intersections to avoid these conflicts is
contrary to the existing operation of the parkway and its function as a limited access
facility.
The existing commuter rail lines define the southerly project limit. There has been some
community interest in extending existing street connection(s) to the south of the project
toward Commonwealth Avenue. This would require construction of structures to pass
over the commuter rail tracks and ramps to the south of the tracks to transition from the
overpassing structure to the local street level. Construction of the transitional ramps will
require removing portions of existing neighborhoods because undeveloped space is not
available. Due to the significant impact that these connections will create, southerly
terminal connectors for vehicles are considered impracticable.
To reduce traffic congestion, one of the primary strategies of the proposed interchange
Alternatives is to distribute traffic along Cambridge Street at separate intersections.
Several groups of interchange alternatives have been considered to achieve this goal.
These groups of alternatives can be more generally characterized as either
“rural/suburban” or “urban” interchanges.
Group 1 - Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D (Figures 9-1 through 9-4)
Group 1 includes suburban style interchange Alternatives 1A through 1D, all of which
provide two terminal connections on Cambridge Street and one on Soldiers Field Road.
The connectors to Cambridge Street are each one way, with one connector combining all
traffic exiting I-90 and the other combining all traffic entering I-90. The main
differences in the Alternatives include ramp geometry as the ramps separate from or
access to and cross I-90 (underpass or overpass structures), and the locations of the
one-way connector intersections on Cambridge Street. On all Alternatives the Soldiers
Field Road connector is accessed through a proposed signalized intersection from the
most easterly connector to Cambridge Street. Some of the key deficiencies of this group
of Alternatives include:
9-12
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses

Concentrates all interstate traffic to two intersections on Cambridge Street,
although some relief would be provided by the connector to Soldiers Field Road;

Results in poor operating conditions at the intersections due to the high volume
of traffic passing through them, the need to phase all movements, and high
bicycle and pedestrian usage on Cambridge Street;

The weave length between the point where the most easterly connector roadway
intersects with the Soldiers Field Road connector is very short. This geometry
would lead to an unsafe traffic movement;

Vehicular access to and from the proposed West Station is not achievable from
the proposed connectors; and

Due to the operational character of these roadways, they would provide poor
access for the adjacent undeveloped land.
Group 2 - Alternatives 2A, 2B (Figures 9-5 and 9-6)
Group 2 includes Alternatives 2A and 2B, both of which provide two terminal
connectors on Cambridge Street and one on Soldiers Field Road. Both terminal
connectors to Cambridge Street are two-way, as opposed to the one-way connectors that
defined Group 1. The two-way feature of the Group 2 connectors is the primary
difference between Groups 1 and 2. Both Alternatives in Group 2 have sweeping
horizontal curvature in the space between I-90 and Cambridge Street. On both
Alternatives 2A and 2B, the Soldiers Field Road connector is accessed through a
proposed signalized intersection from the most easterly connector to Cambridge Street.
Similar to the Group 1 Alternatives, these Alternatives have the same operational
deficiencies:

Concentrates all interstate traffic to two intersections on Cambridge Street,
although some relief would be provided by the connector to Soldiers Field Road;

Results in poor operating conditions at the intersections due to the high volume
of traffic passing through them, the need to phase all movements, and high
bicycle and pedestrian usage on Cambridge Street;

The weave length between the point where the most easterly connector roadway
intersects with the Soldiers Field Road connector is very short. This geometry
would lead to an unsafe traffic movement;

Vehicular access to and from the proposed West Station is not achievable from
the proposed connectors; and
9-13
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses

Due to the operational character of these roadways, they would provide poor
access for the adjacent undeveloped land.
In summary, the rural/suburban interchange configurations representative of Groups 1
and 2 present sweeping curvature and direct connections of the I-90 exits and entrances
to and from Cambridge Street. However, these configurations accentuate convenience
for highway traffic, but not for other transportation modes, contrary to the “complete
streets” doctrine and contrary to Task Force and public input.
Group 3
Group 3 represents urban interchange configurations that are intended to limit the
footprint in the available space, to more successfully disperse traffic to a local street
network as well as the terminal roadways of Cambridge Street and Soldiers Field Road,
and to accommodate increased pedestrian and bicycle accommodations throughout the
project area.
Several alternative variants of the urban interchange concept were explored, varying the
numbers of connecting roadways between I-90 and Cambridge Street, one-way and two
way traffic patterns, and adding a Parallel Road south of Cambridge Street.
Development of the urban interchange concepts was an iterative process, culminating in
three variations of the 3J series as preferred conceptual alternatives. Earlier concepts
(3A through 3H) were eliminated for the following reasons:

Traffic operations and safety;

Ability to accommodate future land development; and

Multi-modal connectivity to West Station and throughout the project area.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C (Figures 9-7 through 9-9)
Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C offer a split diamond interchange configuration with the
I-90 entrance and exit ramps positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal
alignment. The entrance and exit ramps end at a total of four signalized intersections
close in to I-90, with continuing connectors between the intersections. All three
Alternatives involve two connector roadways to and from Cambridge Street with
crossings perpendicular over or under I-90, as follows:

On Alternative 3A, the connector roadway passes over I-90 and the easterly
connector roadway passes under I-90;

On Alternatives 3B and 3C, both connector roadways pass under I-90.
On all three Alternatives, the two connector roadways to Cambridge Street are two way.
On Alternatives 3A and 3C, the most easterly connector intersects with a Soldiers Field
9-14
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Road connector at a signalized intersection located approximately 250-300 feet south of
Cambridge Street.
In contrast, Alternative 3B proposes a two-way bypass roadway beginning from an
intersection on Cambridge Street that proceeds south past the Houghton Chemical
parcel, where the roadway turns sharply to the east and ends at inbound Soldiers Field
Road, independent of any connector to the interchange.
The most significant difference between Alternatives 3A, B and C is where the two
connector roadways from I-90 terminate at Cambridge Street. Alternative 3A also
introduces an offset frontage roadway on the north side of I-90, created by offsetting the
entrance and exit ramps and the roadway in between the ends of the ramps to a location
several hundred feet north of I-90.
These three Alternatives, while limiting the area that is occupied by the I-90 entrance
and exit ramps, only offer two connectors to Cambridge Street and one to Soldiers Field
Road. The traffic operational deficiencies that are characteristic of Groups 1 and 2 are
also present in Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C. In addition, the signalized intersections at
the ends of the ramps concentrate all exiting traffic that must pass through a signal,
which introduces a risk that traffic may queue at a red signal and back on to the
interstate.
Vehicular access to West Station is possible only with Alternative 3A.
Alternative 3D (Figure 9-10)
Alternative 3D is a spilt diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment. Similar to Alternatives 3A,
3B and 3C, two crossings of I-90 are proposed. However, unlike Alternatives 3A, 3B and
3C, three connectors to Cambridge Street are proposed instead of two. All three are two
way.
Similar to Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C, Alternative 3D also includes a Soldiers Field Road
connector, beginning at a signalized intersection located approximately 250-300 feet
south of Cambridge Street on the easterly connector and ending at Soldiers Field Road
inbound. The eastbound entrance and exit ramps end at signalized intersections close in
to I-90, but in contrast to the first three Alternatives, the eastbound exit ramp splits into
two roadways immediately after the I-90 diverge. One of the roadways rises in grade,
continuing to a signalized intersection with the westerly connector that services traffic
with more westerly oriented destinations beyond Cambridge Street. The other roadway
continues several hundred feet east, grade-separated from the first intersection, and
quickly rises in elevation to the second signalized intersection. From here, traffic turns
sharply left to enter the most easterly connector that services traffic with more easterly
oriented destinations beyond Cambridge Street. This split ramp arrangement is
intended to reduce the volume of traffic passing through the first traffic signal, thereby
9-15
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
reducing the back-up queuing potential on to I-90 that is characteristic of Alternatives
3A, 3B and 3C.
Similar to the eastbound exit ramp, the westbound exit ramp also splits beyond the
diverge from I-90, with one roadway continuing to the first signalized intersection with
the easterly connector that services traffic having more easterly oriented destinations
beyond Cambridge Street. The other roadway continues west, grade-separated from the
first elevated intersection, and passes under the next westerly connector to a location
approximately opposite Sorrento Street, but several hundred feet away immediately
adjacent to I-90. From here, the roadway curves sharply to the north on an alignment
that terminates at a new signalized intersection on Cambridge Street opposite Sorrento
Street.
Traffic originating from Cambridge Street destined for I-90 westbound may proceed
from two intersection locations to make this move. The first, most easterly intersection
location is adjacent to the Houghton Chemical parcel where traffic turns on to the
easterly connector and proceeds south, rising to the elevated signalized intersection with
one of the split roadways previously described at the end of the I-90 westbound exit
ramp. From this intersection, traffic destined for I-90 westbound turns sharply right
and descends to an at-grade roadway running parallel to I-90. This roadway is adjacent,
but not connected to the previously described westbound exit ramp roadway that turned
and continued to the Sorrento Street intersection. The roadway continues west and joins
with another roadway that originated from the Sorrento Street intersection destined for
I-90 westbound. From this point the two roadways merge and enter I-90 westbound.
Traffic that enters the most easterly intersection on Cambridge Street destined for I-90
eastbound proceeds south on the easterly connector and rises to the first, previously
described signalized intersection north of I-90, then continues south crossing over I-90
on a bridge to the next, and final signalized intersection on this connector. Eastbound
traffic then turns sharply left and proceeds on the eastbound ramp to enter I-90. This
ramp carries traffic originating from two roadways: the outermost lane(s) originate(s)
from the intersection just described, carrying traffic from the easterly end of Cambridge
Street; the innermost lane(s) carry(s) traffic that originates from the signalized
intersection at the southerly end of the westerly connector. These multiple lanes must
merge and enter I-90 eastbound.
Traffic that originates from westerly oriented locations beyond Cambridge Street
destined for I-90 eastbound enters the westerly connector intersection that is situated
just east of Windom Street, and turns right on to the connector. Heading south, the
connector rises in elevation to pass over I-90 to a signalized intersection. From here,
traffic heading east turns left, travels on an elevated link to the signalized intersection
with the easterly connector, and continues straight through the intersection to the
beginning of the I-90 eastbound entrance ramp. At some distance east of the
intersection, this elevated roadway from the intersection and a rising roadway that
originated from the westerly signalized intersection meet in common elevation and the
9-16
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
merging of these multiple eastbound lanes on the eastbound I-90 entrance ramp then
begins.
Alternative 3D, with three connectors, offers more traffic dispersion than Alternatives
3A, 3B, and 3C, and the split ramp and grade-separated roadway design reduces the
amount of traffic that must pass through traffic signals and as such, reduces queues and
delays for all travel modes.
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential. The eastbound I-90 entrance ramp
includes lane drops that may be challenging to accommodate within available space.
Vehicular travel to West Station is possible from the middle and most easterly
connectors.
Alternative 3E (Figure 9-11)
Alternative 3E is a spilt diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment. This Alternative is similar
to Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C, with two crossings of I-90 and two, two-way connectors
to Cambridge Street. This Alternative also includes the eastbound exit ramp split to two
roadways after the I-90 diverge, with one roadway rising to an elevated signalized
intersection with the westerly connector while the second roadway passes under this
signalized intersection and continues eastward several hundred feet to an at-grade
signalized intersection with the easterly connector, where traffic may turn sharply left
and continue to Cambridge Street. The westerly connector carries only northbound
traffic destined for Cambridge Street from the signalized intersection at the end of the
ramp to a point several hundred feet north of the I-90 alignment. At that point, the
westerly connector widens on the approach to Cambridge Street to include a merging
lane that originated from the I-90 eastbound exit ramp. From this point, also, the
westerly connector carries traffic that originated from Cambridge Street and is destined
for I-90 westbound. The merging lane and the lane destined for I-90 westbound are
defined by large radius alignments.
The I-90 westbound exit ramp splits to two roadways beyond the I-90 diverge, similar to
Alternative 3D, with one roadway curving to the right and merging with the easterly
connector on its approach to Cambridge. The other roadway continues west, gradeseparated and passing over the at-grade easterly connector and staying elevated, passing
over the westbound roadway that originates from the easterly connector. The
overpassing roadway curves to the right and continues northward towards the
intersection at Cambridge Street, merging with the westerly connector.
Traffic destined for I-90 westbound from Cambridge Street may use either the easterly
or the westerly connectors to access the westbound entrance ramp. Traffic proceeds
southward on the easterly connector to a right turning curve just north of the I-90
alignment, where the roadway continues westward and parallel to I-90. This roadway
9-17
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
passes under the westerly connector, then combines with a westbound roadway that
originates from the westerly connector. The combined lanes merge as the roadway
proceeds to the I-90 westbound entrance ramp.
Alternative 3E offers less traffic dispersion than Alternative 3D, but similar to
Alternative 3D, it provides grade-separation at the critical eastbound and westbound
exit ramps where queues back in to I-90 would otherwise be possible
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential, but not to the extent that Alternative
3D provides due to the curvature of the roadway connections north of I-90.
Vehicular travel to West Station is possible from the westerly connector.
Alternative 3F (Figure 9-12)
Alternative 3F is a split diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment. Similar to all previous
Group 3 Alternatives, two crossings of I-90 are proposed. Unlike any of the previous
Alternatives, four connectors to Cambridge Street are proposed instead of two or three,
with one additional connection to Soldiers Field Road. Similar to Alternative 3D, all of
the connectors are two way. Similar to Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C, the I-90 eastbound
exit ramp passes through a signalized intersection with a westerly connector, then
continues through this signal to a second signalized intersection with an easterly
connector. There is no opportunity for traffic to bypass the first traffic signal.
Traffic heading on I-90 eastbound wishing to connect with westerly oriented
destinations beyond Cambridge Street take the I-90 eastbound exit, rise in elevation to
the first traffic signal, then turn left and cross over I-90 and descend to a signalized
intersection at Cambridge Street opposite Seattle Street. For I-90 eastbound exiting
traffic that is traveling to easterly oriented destinations beyond Cambridge Street, the
route passes through the first signalized intersection and continues on an elevated
section to the second signalized intersection. At this intersection, traffic turns left and
descends to Cambridge Street at a new signalized intersection adjacent to the Houghton
Chemical Company parcel.
Traffic heading on I-90 westbound wishing to travel to either easterly or westerly
oriented destinations beyond Cambridge Street take the I-90 westbound exit, descend
on a ramp closely parallel to I-90 that passes under the most easterly connector, to an
at-grade signalized intersection. Traffic headed to easterly oriented destinations turn
right, towards Cambridge Street and a new signalized intersection located just east of
Windom Street. Traffic heading to westerly oriented destinations continue straight
through the signalized intersection, pass under the westerly connector, and turn right at
a second signalized intersection. From the intersection, an at-grade connector roadway
proceeds north to a signalized intersection at Cambridge Street.
9-18
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
For those wishing to access I-90, the four connector roadways from Cambridge Street to
the I-90 interchange each provide specific directional connections, as does the Soldiers
Field Road connection.
Traffic originating from westerly oriented locations heading to westbound I-90 travel to
a signalized intersection at North Harvard Street, turn right, proceed south on a
connector roadway to a second signalized intersection that is located adjacent to I-90,
turn right again and proceed on to the I-90 westbound entrance ramp. For traffic
originating from easterly oriented locations that also wish to head westbound on I-90, a
new signalized intersection just east of Windom Street provides the terminal for this
connection. Traffic heading west on Cambridge Street turn left at this intersection,
proceed south on a connector roadway to a signalized intersection located adjacent to
I-90, turn right through this signal and proceed west several hundred feet to a second
signalized intersection. The second signalized intersection is the end of the connector
that originated at the North Harvard Street intersection previously described. From this
intersection, traffic proceeds on two lanes straight on to the I-90 westbound entrance
ramp, where one lane must be dropped.
Traffic originating from westerly oriented locations heading to eastbound I-90 travel
east on Cambridge Street to a signalized intersection at Seattle Street, turn right on to a
connector roadway that leads south and rises in elevation to pass over I-90 to a
signalized intersection located just south of I-90. From this intersection, traffic turns
left and proceeds east on the previously described elevated structure to a second
signalized intersection and pass straight through to the I-90 eastbound entrance ramp.
Traffic originating from easterly oriented locations that also wish to connect to I-90
eastbound travel west on Cambridge Street to a new signalized intersection, previously
described, that is situated east of the Houghton Chemical Company parcel, and turn left
on to a connector roadway that leads south and rises in elevation to pass over I-90,
ending at a signalized intersection located just south of I-90. From this intersection,
traffic turns left and heads east on to the I-90 eastbound entrance ramp, where one lane
must be dropped.
With four Cambridge Street connectors plus the Soldiers Field Road connector,
Alternative 3F offers better traffic dispersion than any of the previously described
alternatives. However, it does not provide grade-separation at the critical eastbound exit
ramp where there is potential for queues to stack back to the I-90 eastbound travel
lanes.
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential to a similar extent as Alternative 3D.
One way vehicular travel to West Station is possible from the westerly connector that
rises over I-90, with the one way route continuing to the easterly connector that
descends back to Cambridge Street.
Alternative 3G (Figure 9-13)
9-19
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Alternative 3G is a split diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment, and is similar to
Alternative 3D, having three, two-way connectors with Cambridge Street, the Soldiers
Field Road connector, and split I-90 eastbound exit ramps. The differences between
Alternative 3D and 3G are limited to the I-90 westbound exit configuration, the
westbound exit and westbound entrance ramp connections to and from the Cambridge
Street connector roadways, and the eastbound link between the two elevated signalized
intersections south of I-90.
The I-90 westbound exit ramp passes under the most easterly connector roadway and
connects instead to the next two connector roadways with small radius curves and no
signalized intersections. For traffic originating on Cambridge Street wishing to head
west on I-90, the connector roadways that originates at the new signalized intersection
just east of Windom Street rises in elevation as it proceeds south towards I-90, then a
roadway separates from the connector on a small radius, right turning curve
overpassing the westbound exit roadway. The overpassing roadway then descends to an
at-grade alignment parallel, but not connecting with the westbound exit road. The atgrade roadway proceeds west several hundred feet to run parallel with and connect to a
westbound roadway that originates from the most westerly connector. The multiple
lanes of the combined westbound roadways must merge as they proceed to the I-90
westbound entrance ramp.
The I-90 eastbound exit ramp splits after the I-90 diverge, similar to Alternative D, with
one roadway rising in elevation to a signalized intersection with the westerly connector
while the second roadway remains at-grade, passing under the elevated structure, and
then quickly rises in elevation to the second, signalized intersection at the easterly
connector. However, unlike Alternative 3D, there is no eastbound connection from the
first (westerly), signalized, elevated intersection to the second. This arrangement
reduces the number of travel lanes that must merge beyond the second (easterly)
intersection prior to entering I-90 eastbound.
With three connectors to Cambridge Street plus the connector to Soldiers Field Road,
Alternative 3G offers similar traffic dispersion as Alternative 3D, but not as much as
Alternative 3F. Similar to Alternative 3D, but not Alternative 3F, 3G provides the split
ramp arrangement at the I-90 eastbound exit ramp, which reduces the risk of queues
backing in to the I-90 eastbound travel lanes. Alternative 3G provides only one route for
traffic from Cambridge Street to access I-90 eastbound instead of the two routes offered
by Alternatives 3D and 3F. However, by providing only the one route, Alternative 3G
eliminates the Alternative 3D problem of having to merge multiple lanes from two
separate eastbound roadways at a common elevation east of the easterly signalized
intersection, all to be accomplished in advance of the eastbound I-90 entrance ramp
nose.
9-20
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Common to Alternatives 3D and 3F, the compact, split diamond interchange layout
minimizes the footprint of impact on the area and maximizes development area
potential.
Similar to Alternative 3D, vehicular travel to West Station is possible from the westerly
connector.
Alternative 3H (Figure 9-14)
Alternative 3H is a split diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment, and is similar to
Alternatives 3D and 3G, having three, two-way connectors with Cambridge Street, the
Soldiers Field Road connector, and split I-90 eastbound exit ramps. Unlike Alternative
3G, but similar to Alternative 3D, for those wishing to access I-90 eastbound there is a
route from the first signalized intersection at the westerly connector that continues to
the I-90 eastbound entrance ramp, thereby offering two routes for Cambridge Street
traffic to access I-90 eastbound. A unique feature of Alternative 3G is that after the I-90
eastbound exit where the exit ramp splits to two roadways, the roadway that continues
at-grade enters a signalized at-grade intersection with the westerly connector, the only
Alternative that proposes an at-grade westerly connector. The roadway that continues
beyond the first signalized intersection remains at the same elevation as I-90 up to that
intersection, where it then descends in elevation, continuing to the same location as the
elevated easterly connector, but underneath it. At this location, the roadway turns
sharply left and passes at-grade under I-90, following an alignment northward towards
Cambridge Street, adjacent and to the right of the easterly connector as the connector
descends in elevation on its approach to Cambridge Street.
Similar to Alternative 3G, exiting I-90 westbound traffic passes under the easterly
connector, but unlike Alternative 3G, the roadway remains at the same elevation as
I-90. At a location approximately opposite Windom Street, but in close proximity to I90, this roadway turns sharply right. From here, the roadway continues to a new
signalized intersection on Cambridge Street just east of Windom Street. From this same
intersection, traffic destined for I-90 westbound travels south on this same roadway to a
location adjacent to I-90, where it turns sharply right. The roadway continues west,
parallel to I-90 westbound and at the same elevation as I-90 to point where another
westbound roadway, originating from the at-grade westerly connector, reaches the same
elevation. Beyond this point, the lanes from both roadways must merge as they proceed
on the I-90 westbound entrance ramp.
Similar to Alternative 3D, for traffic that entered the most easterly intersection on
Cambridge Street that is destined for I-90 eastbound, traffic proceeds south, rising in
elevation on the easterly connector, crossing over I-90 on a bridge to the signalized
intersection on the south side of I-90. Eastbound traffic then turns sharply left and
proceeds on the eastbound ramp to enter I-90. This entrance ramp carries traffic
originating from two roadways: the outermost lane(s) originate(s) from the intersection
9-21
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
just described, carrying traffic from the easterly end of Cambridge Street; the innermost
lane(s) carry(s) traffic that originates from the signalized intersection at the southerly
end of the westerly connector. These multiple lanes must merge before entering I-90
eastbound.
With three connectors to Cambridge Street plus the connector to Soldiers Field Road,
Alternative 3H offers similar traffic dispersion as Alternative 3D and 3G, but not as
much as Alternative 3F. Similar to Alternative 3D and 3G, but not Alternative 3F, 3H
provides the split ramp arrangement at the I-90 eastbound exit ramp, which reduces the
risk of queues backing in to the I-90 eastbound travel lanes. Similar to Alternative 3D
and 3F, but not 3G, Alternative 3H provides two routes for traffic from Cambridge
Street to access I-90 eastbound. However, this arrangement presents a multiple lane
merge on the eastbound I-90 entrance ramp that must be completed before the ramp
connects to I-90.
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential to a similar extent as Alternatives 3D,
3F and 3G.
Vehicular access to West Station is possible only from the easterly connector that rises
over I-90.
Alternative 3I (Figure 9-15)
Alternative 3I is a split diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment. On the southerly side of
I-90, the ramp entrance and exit arrangement is identical to Alternative 3G. In
summary, this arrangement avoids the multiple merging lane problem on the I-90
eastbound entrance ramp, but it also provides only one access route from Cambridge
Street to I-90 eastbound. This arrangement also provides the split I-90 eastbound exit
ramp configuration that minimizes the risk of queues backing up in to I-90 eastbound
travel lanes.
On the northerly side of I-90, Alternative 3I provides five connectors with Cambridge
Street, more than any of the other Alternatives, plus the one connector to Soldiers Field
Road. Exiting I-90 westbound traffic descends under the elevated easterly connector to
an at-grade roadway that runs closely parallel to I-90. This roadway continues
westward, also passing under the westerly connector, as a collector-distributor roadway
all the way to the I-90 westbound entrance ramp. Two roadways exiting from the
collector-distributor provide connections to the Cambridge Street and parallel roadway
couplet. The most easterly of the exiting roadways is two-way, ending at a signalized
intersection just east of Windom Street. The other roadway is one way, ending at a
signalized “T” intersection between North Harvard Street and Sorrento Street. Two
roadways enter the collector-distributor, providing access to I-90 for westbound traffic.
The most easterly roadway, the two-way roadway previously mentioned, enters the
collector-distributor roadway at a traffic signal that is proposed to meter traffic to avoid
9-22
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
an undesirable weave to the next exiting roadway. The next entering roadway is
approximately opposite North Harvard Street and it enters the collector-distributor
roadway on its own lane. West beyond this point, the two lanes on the collectordistributor roadway must merge on the I-90 entrance ramp.
Alternative 3I provides the most traffic dispersion of any alternative and the most
flexibility for access to I-90, with the exception of the I-90 eastbound movement, where
only one access route is provided.
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential and access to development parcels.
One way vehicular access to West Station is provided over I-90 from the westerly
connector to the easterly connector.
Alternative 3J (Figure 9-16)
Alternative 3J is a split diamond interchange with the I-90 entrance and exit ramps
positioned closely adjacent to the I-90 horizontal alignment. On the southerly side of I90, the ramp entrance and exit arrangement is identical to Alternative 3G. In summary,
this arrangement avoids the multiple merging lane problem on the I-90 eastbound
entrance ramp, but it also provides only one access route from Cambridge Street to I-90
eastbound. This arrangement also provides the split I-90 eastbound exit ramp
configuration that minimizes the risk of queues backing up in to I-90 eastbound travel
lanes.
On the northerly side of I-90, Alternative 3J provides four connectors with Cambridge
Street plus the one connector to Soldiers Field Road. Exiting I-90 westbound traffic
descends under the elevated easterly connector to an at-grade roadway that runs closely
parallel to I-90. This roadway continues westward, also passing under the westerly
connector, as a collector-distributor roadway all the way to the I-90 westbound entrance
ramp. Two roadways exiting from the collector-distributor provide connections to the
Cambridge Street and parallel roadway couplet. The most easterly of the exiting
roadways is two-way, ending at a signalized intersection opposite the planned future
alignment of East Drive. The other roadway is two way, ending at a signalized
intersection opposite Seattle Street. Two roadways enter the collector-distributor,
providing access to I-90 for westbound traffic. The most easterly roadway, the two-way
roadway previously mentioned, enters the collector-distributor roadway at a traffic
signal that is proposed to meter traffic to avoid an undesirable weave to the next exiting
roadway. The next entering roadway is east of North Harvard Street and it enters the
collector-distributor roadway on its own lane. West beyond this point, the two lanes on
the collector-distributor roadway must merge on the I-90 entrance ramp.
This alternative eliminates the connection from North Harvard Street onto the I-90
westbound collector-distributor roadway, minimizing potential cut through traffic on
North Harvard Street for vehicles desiring to access I-90 westbound.
9-23
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
The compact, split diamond interchange layout minimizes the footprint of impact on the
area and maximizes development area potential and access to development parcels.
Vehicular access to West Station is provided over I-90 from the westerly connector to
the easterly connector. Design development during the DEIR will consider feasibility of
a two-way bus loop, a “kiss and ride” area, as well as provisions for shuttles and taxis.
Similar design refinements will be considered during the DEIR, for example, further
analysis of making the East Drive Connector at-grade and elevating Stadium Way
Connector.
3.3
Beacon Park Yards and West Station
3.3.1 Beacon Park Yards
Addressing the long-term transportation needs of Greater Boston, MassDOT has been
considering alternatives to expand passenger rail service (commuter and intercity rail)
into South Station. Concurrent with the submission of this ENF, MassDOT is submitting
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for its South Station Expansion (SSX)
project. The SSX DEIR includes consideration of facilities needed to support the
operational expansion of the commuter rail system south of Boston, including the need
to maintain and store the additional train sets that would be part of the program.
Through this process, MassDOT has determined that a layover facility located west of
South Station is needed, and has identified Beacon Park Yards (BPY) as a component of
its preferred alternative for a layover facility. Locating layover and related facilities at
the BPY would maintain the existing industrial use at this location and be consistent
with existing zoning.
The BPY facilities would include a pit track, a wheel truing facility, crew quarters, a car
wash (trains), a power substation, maintenance crew parking areas, and related utility
infrastructure. An access roadway will be required to allow staff and delivery trucks to
gain entry to the facility from local streets. MassDOT expects to locate the access
roadway leading to the east side of the layover yard following a path that would lead
behind the I-90 viaduct west abutment to the east of the project locus. From there, the
access roadway would lead into the new roadway network to be built on the north side of
the relocated I-90. The layover facility will provide parking for up to 70 maintenance
staff.
3.3.2 West Station
MassDOT is also moving forward with the design for a new commuter rail station within
the BPY, to be known as West Station. West Station would be constructed along the
existing commuter rail tracks of the Worcester Branch line towards the southerly
boundary of the BPY property. As proposed, the station would consist of two platforms
serving four service tracks. The platforms would be accessed through a station structure
at a mezzanine level over the platforms, with local street connections to the south and a
9-24
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
busport on the north side of the stations. The busport would be connected to the I-90
interchange via a viaduct loop above the BPY layover facility. The street connections
would provide for pedestrian access from the Boston University West Campus area at
Malvern Street and Babcock Street. MassDOT will evaluate opportunities to provide
“kiss & ride” areas where cars can discharge and pick up rail passengers in the vicinity of
the station. MassDOT also envisions providing a through connection for bicycles and
pedestrians from the Babcock Street Station access point to the shared-use pathway and
Paul Dudley White Path at Soldiers Field Road. The pedestrian and bicycle connection
from Babcock Street would allow for through pedestrian and bicycle traffic over the rail
lines without the need to enter the commuter rail station. The details of these
connections to the West Station access will be developed.
MassDOT does not intend to provide local parking for station patrons.
4.0
Alternative Modes of Transportation – Multi-Modal Connectivity
MassDOT has integrated significant multi-modal features into the project design to
improve connectivity for all modes of transportation in the project area. An extensive
network of sidewalks and bicycle tracks will be incorporated into the design of
Cambridge Street, future local roadway connections to the I-90 ramps and the access
ramps to West Station from the north. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian connections to
West Station from the Commonwealth Avenue/Beacon Street area to the south of the
railroad are also provided.
5.0
Traffic – Existing and Future Conditions
MassDOT will conduct a transportation analysis, consisting of a detailed traffic analysis
of the project alternatives. The transportation analysis will examine existing travel
patterns and future 2035 No Build and Build alternative transportation conditions.
Travel demand forecasting performed by the Central Transportation Planning Staff will
be developed for 2035 and used to assess transportation and traffic impacts, using a
traffic model (SYNCHRO network) to analyze weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours and
Saturday midday traffic. The transportation analysis will include collection of existing
data on transportation modes, including vehicular, public/private transit (rail and bus),
pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as crash data. Transit ridership and service data will be
collected, and information on future private development on the project site will be
identified based on Harvard University Allston developments and supplemented with
data from the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) for use in developing forecasts.
6.0
Future Development in the Project Area
The future land development of the Harvard University property has been identified as a
significant issue for the community. As a state agency, MassDOT has no control over
land use developments and zoning issues as these decisions are the purview of the
9-25
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
landowner (Harvard University) and the City of Boston acting through the Boston
Redevelopment Authority.
MassDOT understands, however, that the design of the I-90 Allston Interchange may
have a significant effect on the future development of the area. For the EIR, MassDOT
will develop future land use development assumptions which will be used in several
analyses. Most important of these analyses include the traffic analysis and the analysis
of the potential social and economic effects of the project.
MassDOT has been coordinating with Harvard University to develop the future land use
development assumptions for the project area, consistent with land uses and density of
other approved Harvard Allston developments. These land use assumptions will be used
as inputs into the CTPS regional transportation model to be used to analyze the regional
transportation impacts of the project.
7.0
Noise and Vibration
MassDOT will conduct a detailed analysis of the potential highway/transit noise and
transit vibration impacts of the project. In the EIR, analysis of noise and vibration will
be included in compliance with the MassDOT Noise Policy, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
The noise analysis will evaluate the sound levels associated with the relocation of I-90,
the proposed West Station, and the BPY layover yard. Noise monitoring data will be
collected to help establish existing noise conditions and to validate the noise models.
The FHWA’s traffic noise model (TNM) and the FTA modeling procedures will be used
to determine build sound levels that will be compared to the FHWA and/or FTA noise
impact criteria. Mitigation measures will be evaluated for receptor locations that are
determined to exceed the noise impact criteria. The noise analysis will evaluate the
cumulative sound levels of both highway and transit noise sources to determine if the
proposed noise barrier associate with the BPY layover yard will provide adequate noise
reduction to the residential area.
The vibration analysis will evaluate the vibration levels associated with the transit
activities within the study area. The FTA modeling procedures will be used to determine
build vibration levels that will be compared to the FTA ground-borne vibration impact
criteria. Mitigation measures will be evaluated for receptor locations that are
determined to exceed the vibration impact criteria.
9-26
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
8.0
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
MassDOT will conduct a detailed analysis of the potential air quality impacts of the
project. In the EIR, analysis of the highway air quality and transit air quality
components of the project will be included.
8.1
HIGHWAY
The air quality analysis of the highway components of the project will include both
microscale and mesoscale analyses. Compliance with the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs Revised MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol
(May 2010) will be addressed. MassDOT will also include an assessment of the project’s
contributions to advancing the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020.
The Plan includes a target reduction of 7.6 percent decrease in the 1990 GHG emissions
by 2020 for the transportation sector.
8.1.1 Microscale Analysis
The microscale analysis will be conducted at each traffic study intersection with a
projected level of service equal to D, E or F where the project adds 10% or more traffic
volume. Worst-case traffic volumes will be used to predict maximum one-hour and
eight-hour CO concentrations at selected sensitive locations (receptors) intersections for
the Existing, No-Build, Build cases. The microscale analyses will include the No Build
alternative for the existing year (2014) and the Build and No Build alternatives for the
estimated time of completion year, (2020) and the design year, (2035).
Predictions will be made at all identified sensitive receptors for the maximum one-hour
and eight-hour periods. CO concentrations will be predicted for the Build and No Build
alternative for the years previously indicated and will be compared to the State and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Predictions of CO concentrations
will be made at intersections where the LOS is worse than C. If violations of the NAAQS
occur, then mitigation measures will be developed.
8.1.2 Mesoscale Analysis
A mesoscale analysis will be performed to estimate the total daily emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) in the
mesoscale study areas. The mesoscale analyses will include the No Build alternative for
the existing year (2014) and the Build and No Build alternatives for the estimated time
of completion year, (2020) and the design year, (2035).
No mitigation scenarios will be analyzed since the project will not directly result in the
development of any new traffic-generating projects. MassDEP guidance in Guidelines
for Performing Mesoscale Analysis of Indirect Sources (May 1991) will be followed to
perform the mesoscale analysis.
9-27
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
8.2
TRANSIT
A regional emissions inventory will be prepared for criteria pollutants (volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO0, sulfur oxides
(SOx) and particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5)). The emissions inventories will include daily
and annual emissions from the diesel locomotives and motor vehicles on roadways in
the air quality study area for the existing and design year for the No Build and Build
alternatives.
As noted in EPA’s November 2013 Guidance document Transportation Conformity
Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas, PM hot-spot analyses are required for projects of “local air quality
concern” which include certain highway and transit projects that involve significant
levels of diesel vehicle traffic and any other project identified in the PM State
Implementation Plan as a localized air quality concern.
Under the EPA Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93), project-level air
quality conformity determinations may be required for certain projects. Section
93.123(b)(1) of the conformity rule defines the projects that require a PM2.5 or PM10
hot-spot analysis and includes:
(iii) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant
number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location.
If a particulate matter (PM) quantitative hotspot analysis is needed, and if data are
available, MassDOT will conduct a quantitative PM hotspot analysis following current
U.S. EPA guidelines. For the quantification, the analysis will focus only on the emissions
from the diesel trains and the motor vehicles in the air quality study area. If data are
unavailable or if consensus with the MassDEP cannot be reached on the analysis area or
the methodology, MassDOT will conduct a qualitative analysis following joint FHWA
and U.S. EPA previous guidance dated March 2006. Additionally, MassDOT will
conduct a screening analysis of NO2 using dispersion modeling.
9.0
Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Assessment
MassDOT has initiated preliminary research and will conduct field investigations to
identify any recognized environmental conditions associated with the project area. Due
to the historic use of the project site as a railroad terminal and layover area, additional
investigations will be completed to adequately characterize both above-ground and
below-ground contamination at the site. If any recognized environmental conditions
are identified, recommendations for further evaluations and testing may be warranted.
MassDOT will also address the need for state permits under the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan (MCP) and MGL Chapter 21E related to solid and hazardous waste at
the site.
9-28
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
10.0
Historic and Archaeological Resources
MassDOT, FHWA and the FTA will consult with the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC) and other interested parties, such as the Boston Landmarks
Commission, to assess potential impacts to significant historic resources in accordance
with Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C (950 CMR 71.00)
and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR Part 800).
11.0
Open Space and Recreational Resources
The project area borders the Charles River Reservation, a significant open space and
recreational resource. The Paul Dudley White bicycle path along the Charles River is a
popular and well used recreational resource. Figure 4 in Attachment 4 to this ENF
illustrates the open space resources in the project area.
The potential relocation of Soldiers Field Road away from the river would create
additional areas of parkland within the Charles River Reservation. In the EIR, MassDOT
will fully analyze the impacts to the existing open space. An analysis of the relocation’s
compliance with the provisions of the Section 4(f) requirements and the requirements of
Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, including the EEA
Article 97 Land Disposition Policy will be provided.
The Charles River Reservation is located within the boundaries of the Charles River
Basin Historic District. Under the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, any impact to land within the district is subject to review by the MHC
SHPO for a determination as to whether an adverse effect to the historic resource would
occur. In addition, impacts to listed historic resources are also subject to Section 4(f)
review.
12.0
Stormwater Management and Impaired Waters
MassDOT will prepare a complete analysis of the project’s compliance with the
MassDEP Stormwater Management Regulations in the EIR. The Charles River adjacent
to the project area is listed as an Impaired Water under the federal Clean Water Act.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been issued for the Charles River and are
based on several impairments, including Phosphorus (Total), Chlorophyll-a, Escherichia
coli, Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators and Secchi Disk Transparency.
In the EIR, MassDOT will investigate all feasible Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
the treatment and control of stormwater runoff consistent with the MassDEP
Stormwater Management Handbook. The project area is located in an area of historic
soil and groundwater contamination, and MassDOT will seek to identify BMPs which
maximize groundwater recharge in the project area consistent with the existing
groundwater levels and areas of soil and groundwater contamination.
9-29
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
A draft construction period Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Prevention Plan will
be included in the EIR.
13.0
Environmental Justice
MassDOT has defined an area surrounding the I-90 Allston Interchange Project site as
that whose socioeconomic and institutional development is most likely to be directly
affected by the proposed improvements. The area was drawn to include key institutional
properties of Harvard and Boston Universities and important development projects
such as Boston Landing and Barry’s Corner. Most importantly, the area includes the
neighborhoods whose residents and businesses are most affected by the existing
interchange configuration and, therefore, would most likely be impacted by any changes
in access and accessibility.
MassDOT has also identified existing Environmental Justice (EJ) populations in the
project area as illustrated on Figure 5 in Attachment 4 to the ENF.
MassDOT will prepare an EJ analysis of the project based on federal and state guidance
to be included in the EIR. MassDOT will verify locations of EJ populations, and will
assess whether there are specific impacts upon those populations. The effects of the
alternatives on EJ populations will be evaluated and compared to the effects on the
larger project area, to determine whether the impacts on EJ populations would be
disproportionate and adverse. Any necessary mitigation measures will be identified.
14.0
Construction Phasing
The I-90 Allston Interchange Project will be constructed in phases in order to safely
maintain traffic flow through the project area. Viaduct and interchange construction
phasing plans will be developed for and included in theDEIR.
The detailed construction phasing plan will be based on the following assumptions:

Three I-90 travel lanes in each direction must be maintained during daytime
peak travel periods for the duration of construction;

Two I-90 travel lanes in each direction must be maintained during nighttime off
peak travel periods for the duration of construction;

Two travel lanes on Soldiers Field in each direction must be maintained during
daytime peak travel periods for the duration of construction; and

One commuter rail track, the Grand Junction Rail line and the Houghton
Chemical rail spur must remain in operation through the project for the duration
of construction.
9-30
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
The number of travel lanes required for I-90 and Soldiers Field Road during
construction is based on the magnitude of the current average daily traffic volumes. I-90
currently carries an average daily traffic volume of 147,000 vehicles. Soldiers Field Road
currently carries an average daily traffic volume of 65,000 vehicles.
15.0 Alternatives Analysis Criteria and Preliminary Screening of Project
Alternatives
The following is intended to explain the evaluation criteria developed by MassDOT to
select a preferred alternative to replace the current I-90 Allston Interchange. In this
task, the criteria have two roles to play which are central to the current conceptual
planning process.
One is to reflect the wishes and desires of the Allston community as expressed to
MassDOT and its project team. By reflecting these wishes and applying them as
evaluation criteria, it is MassDOT’s goal to ensure that to the extent possible and
appropriate, the current Allston Interchange is replaced with modern, multimodal
infrastructure which reflects the aspirations and values of the community in which it is
located.
The other is to explain for the purposes of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes and the metrics by
which a preferred alternative will be selected. As such, the evaluation criteria are a mix
of the general, things which would be applicable to any project anywhere in the
Commonwealth (e.g, the new interchange should provide for safer traffic operations on
I-90), and the specific, things which are tightly connected to what members of the
community have told the project team (e.g., the project should reknit the neighborhoods
of Allston to themselves and the key green space of the Charles River basin).
The genesis of the evaluation criteria is traceable to the initial public information
meeting held on April 10, 2014, and the first two sessions of the task force, held on May
7th and 21st, 2014. As was noted during the May 21st Task Force meeting, there is in fact
significant overlap between the community’s and the agency’s goals for this project.
Comments on an earlier draft of this document were solicited from the Task Force in
August 2014 and certain criteria have been revised to incorporate comments received.
Perhaps the most significant point of difference between MassDOT and the Allston
community, as represented by the Task Force, is one of terminology. Where members of
the project team are inclined to think of project goals broadly (i.e., the new interchange
should incorporate multimodal connections), members of the Task Force are inclined to
define their goals with a much tighter and more tactical focus (i.e. the new interchange
should incorporate a mixed use pathway which connects the Allston neighborhood to
the Charles River such that cyclists and pedestrians do not have to mix with automotive
traffic).
9-31
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
All of these highly specific elements have been captured by the project team and have
been incorporated into the design over the course of the past several months. The
dismissal of the suburban style interchange, the incorporation of the shared-use
pathway described above, and the incorporation of cycle tracks into current proposals
for Cambridge Street, have all come from either the Allston community or its
representative Task Force.
In light of this, and because of the dual nature of these criteria, it should not be assumed
that just because a particular, focused element is not seen herein that it has been lost or
ignored, rather it has been incorporated into the broader goals for the project. In light of
that, and before reviewing what follows, readers should take note of the following points
of agreement between the Task Force and MassDOT regarding goals for the project
articulated on May 21st:







Improve safety for all modes: walking, cycling, driving, transit;
Realign I-90;
Context sensitive design:
o Lessen impact of interchange;
o Avoid inducing cut-through traffic with new configuration;
o Reconnect sections of Allston to each other and the River;
Protect the neighborhood during construction;
A more vibrant Cambridge Street that serves all modes;
Support future expansion of transit services; and
Accessibility to transit at future West Station.
It is these points of broad agreement which have been used to develop the following
criteria and which continue to guide the actions of the project team as it works with the
Task Force towards selecting a preferred alternative.
A matrix illustrating the results of the preliminary screening of the project alternatives is
included at the end of the Attachment.
15.1
METHODOLOGY
The screening process is intended to identify feasible project alternatives to carry
forward in the detailed environmental impact assessment for the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) and the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the project.
A range of engineering, environmental, cost, and schedule screening criteria have been
developed with which the Alternatives will be assessed. These criteria can also be
generally grouped into two categories: the Human Environment and the Natural
Environment. The screening criteria have been developed with input from the I-90
9-32
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Allston Interchange Task Force advising MassDOT in concert with the professional
judgment of the senior professional staff of the project team and MassDOT staff
members based on previous experience. The screening factors reflect the potential
relevant factors affecting the feasibility of the alternatives.
Once the screening criteria are finalized with input from the Task Force, each alternative
will be assessed for the criteria and the rating for the particular alternative determined
for those criteria. Alternatives are ranked on a three-point scale: Positive, Neutral or
Negative. Alternatives are ranked Negative if the alternative does not meet the criteria,
Positive if the alternative meets or exceeds the criteria, and Neutral if the alternative is
considered not to be affected by the criteria.
15.2
SCREENING CRITERIA
15.2.1
Meets Purpose and Need
This criterion assesses the potential of each alternative to meet the Purpose and Need of
the project. The Purpose and Need identifies the characteristics (geometry, safety,
traffic, etc.) necessary to meet the basic requirements of the project purpose. For the
I-90 Allston Interchange Project, these include:






15.2.2
To reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic through the project area;
To improve safety along I-90 by removing the existing toll plazas and providing a
design in compliance with Highway Design Standards;
To improve safety within the project area by providing improvements at affected
intersections;
To improve local and regional air quality by reducing congestion on I-90 and in
the project area and offering alternative (or non-motorized) modes of
transportation;
To provide the infrastructure to support construction of West Station and transit
infrastructure; and
To provide the infrastructure to support alternative (or non-motorized) modes of
transportation within the project area and connections to the broader nonmotorized infrastructure outside of the project area.
Multi-Modal Connectivity
This criterion includes several sub-criteria assessing the degree to which each of the
alternatives provides for improved multi-modal connectivity in the project area.
MassDOT has implemented several initiatives which encourage development of multimodal infrastructure including GreenDOT, the Healthy Transportation Policy, and the
MassDOT Complete Streets initiative. The City of Boston has also implemented a
Complete Streets policy. An Alternative which better incorporates multi-modal
transportation elements which reflect the principles outlined in these initiatives will
receive a higher rating than an alternative which does not. These sub-criteria include:
9-33
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Safety
This criterion assesses the degree to which an alternative provides improved safety for
non-motorized modes of travel including bicycles and pedestrians as well as safe access
to public transit throughout the project area. For example, an alternative which meets
all or most of the shared-use pathway design standards and provides improved safety at
local intersections and planned roadways in the project area would be scored higher
than an alternative that does not meet standards at all or several locations.
Pedestrian Routes
This criterion assesses the degree to which the alternative provides safe, more direct
pedestrian routes throughout the project area, including the Cambridge Street corridor,
the Lincoln Street footbridge, planned roadways, existing neighborhoods and shared use
pathway alignments.
Bicycle Routes
Similar to the Pedestrian Routes criterion, this criterion assesses the degree to which the
alternative provides safe, direct bicycle routes throughout the project area, including the
Cambridge Street corridor and planned roadways, existing roadways and shared use
pathway alignments. Also, measured within the criteria is alternative design that
improves safe bicycle travel along Cambridge Street and/or provides additional options
for bicycle travel within the project area (e.g., north-south connections from the area
abutting Boston University across the interchange towards Cambridge Street,
connections to the White bicycle path along the Charles River). An alternative which
facilitates future connections to a proposed shared use pathway along the Grand
Junction Line in Cambridge would also receive a positive rating.
Access to West Station
Positively rated design alternatives provide multi-modal access to the planned location
for West Station from south of the rail tracks and from the neighborhood to the north.
Alternatives which do not include this access would be scored negative.
15.2.3
Traffic Operation
This criterion includes several sub-criteria assessing the degree to which each of the
alternatives affect traffic operations in the project area. These sub-criteria include:
Safety
This criterion assesses the degree to which an alternative improves the safety of the
traveling public within the project area and allows for a safe design that meets existing
standards for interstate highways, local streets, shared-use pathways and transit
facilities. Positive alternatives provide safety improvements at known high volume
accident locations in the project area. In addition, positive alternatives will create safer
9-34
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
connections between the Turnpike and Cambridge Street, creating intersections which
safely transition motorists from the high speed environment of I-90 to the low speed
environment of the Allston neighborhood.
Travel Time/Level of Service (LOS)
Travel Time: The amount of time it takes for a vehicle to traverse the project area
depends on the speed of vehicles, the number of lane changes that are occurring, and
the degree of congestion and delay at area intersections. Travel time will depend on the
speed of vehicles and the number of lane changes that occur for merging, weaving, and
diverging conditions. Improvements to project area intersections which would decrease
existing delays are also assessed. Improvements to the roadway system should likewise
take steps to protect abutting residential streets from cut-through traffic associated with
the interchange. An alternative which improves travel time on the I-90 mainline and
through the interchange would be scored higher for this criterion.
Level of Service (LOS): LOS is an indicator of operating conditions occurring on a given
roadway or at a given intersection. For a roadway, it is based on the freedom vehicles
have to maneuver and their proximity to other vehicles, as measured by the density of
the traffic. For a signalized intersection, the LOS is based on the average stopped delay
of vehicles at the intersection. The estimated traffic volume at each location will be used
as a measure of the potential LOS at that location. LOS is presented as a letter grade
ranging from A (free flow, no congestion) to F (extreme congestion). Alternatives which
provide improved operation conditions overall within the project area would score
higher for this criterion than an alternative for which there would be several or many
locations with potential congestion under projected traffic conditions.
Intersection Connectivity
This criterion assesses the degree to which an alternative improves connectivity from
I-90 to Cambridge Street and serves to disperse traffic along the Cambridge Street
corridor and elsewhere in the project area. Alternatives with more connections to
Cambridge Street and other roadways are considered to improve connectivity compared
to existing conditions and other alternatives with fewer connections.
Streetscape
This criterion assesses the ability of the alternative to provide for improvements to the
existing streetscape for Cambridge Street and planned roadways in the project area.
Positive design elements and goals heard from the community include but are not
limited to: making Cambridge Street a more welcoming place to be as a cyclist or
pedestrian; making Cambridge Street a two-sided urban roadway; enhanced
landscaping treatments and installation of “street furniture” such as benches, and
lighting; increased opportunities for future development of neighborhood-scale streets
which could accommodate future appropriately-scaled development, additional open
9-35
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
spaces. An alternative which reserves more space for future development would be
scored higher for this criterion.
15.2.4
Environmental
The Environmental criterion includes seven separate sub-criteria which incorporate
consideration of the alternatives impact on and the potential to improve the natural and
cultural resources and open space in the project area. These sub-criteria include:
Drainage and Stormwater
The existing interstate highway interchange, the railroad yard, Soldiers Field Road and
local roadways drain to the Charles River, which has been designated as an “Impaired”
waterbody under the federal Clean Water Act because the existing water quality does not
meet surface water quality standards. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been
established for this reach of the Charles River for pollutants including phosphorus and
pathogens (E. coli).
Alternatives will be assessed for their relative ability to improve the quality of
stormwater discharges to the river with the addition of feasible stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Examples of BMPs include installing catch basins with
deep sumps to minimize suspended particulate discharges, or the construction of
vegetated swales or infiltration basins to infiltrate runoff to the ground.
The alternatives will also be evaluated based on their potential to allow for
implementing stormwater management measures that meet the requirements of the
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations and the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook,
including the following standards:




Potential to provide water quality treatment;
Potential to provide recharge volume;
Potential to provide peak flow attenuation; and
Potential for staging of the stormwater management measures during
construction.
Historic Impacts
The project area is bordered by the Charles River Basin Historic District and the
Harvard Avenue Historic District, both listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(NR). Soldiers Field Road, the Boston University Bridge, the Grand Junction Railroad
Bridge, and the River Street Bridge are all listed as contributing elements in the Charles
River Basin Historic District. The Peter Fuller Building at 808 Commonwealth Ave. is
individually NR-listed. Nearby properties recorded in the Inventory of Historic and
Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, but not NR-listed, include the
Longefellow [sic] House at 4 Wadsworth St. and several Boston University facilities
9-36
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
bordering the CSX tracks, the least altered of which are the College of Fine Arts Building
at 855-861 Commonwealth Ave., the Physical Plant Building at 120 Ashford St., the
Athletics Department Building at 300-316 Babcock St., and Nickerson Field.
This criterion assesses the potential impacts of an alternative on the historic resources
in the project area. Any alternative that would impact National Register-listed and –
eligible properties may result in a finding of Adverse Effect from the Massachusetts
Historic Preservation Officer under the provisions of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Historic structures are also protected under the provisions of
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Projects which impact
Section 4(f) resources must demonstrate that there is no prudent and feasible
alternative which avoids the impact.
For this criterion, any alternative that would clearly have no effect to the historic
character and elements of the existing historic resources would be scored Positive.
Alternatives for which an effect to the historic resources cannot be clearly defined at this
time would be scored Neutral. Alternatives that would clearly result in permanent
adverse effects to the historic resources would be scored Negative.
Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland resources in the project area are limited to the Charles River,
including the state wetland resources Land Under Water, Inland Bank and Riverfront
Area. Modifications or improvements to the existing stormwater outfalls in the river
may affect wetlands. This criterion assesses the potential impacts of an alternative to
the wetland resources along the Charles River. In general, any Alternative that would
result in no permanent impacts to wetland resources would be scored Positive.
Alternatives that would result in minimal permanent direct impacts to wetland
resources (e.g., less than 5,000 square feet of vegetated wetlands, less than 50 linear feet
of Inland Bank) would be scored Neutral.
Alternatives that would result in greater permanent direct impacts to wetland resources
(e.g., greater than 5,000 square feet of vegetated wetlands and greater than 50 linear
feet of Inland Bank) would be scored Negative.
Noise
This criterion assesses the potential impacts of highway and rail noise on the
surrounding neighborhoods. The removal of the existing toll plaza may result in an
increase in highway noise due to the increase in travel flow speed along I-90 in the area.
However, the realignment of I-90 may reduce highway noise for areas to the north as
the highway is shifted away from the residential neighborhood. The realignment of I-90
to the south may result in changes to the proposed noise barrier parameters that is
associated with the BPY layover project. The change in the distribution on Cambridge
Street accessing I-90 may result in changes in highway noise for areas along Cambridge
9-37
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
Street. Rail noise impacts could result from the operation of the train layover yard.
However, the new West Station may reduce rail noise as travel speeds would be decrease
as trains pass through the station.
For this criterion, alternatives which are judged to result in increased noise impacts
would be scored Negative, while alternatives which are judged to result in decreased
noise impacts would be judged Positive.
Construction noise impacts are assessed under the “Construction Impacts” criterion.
Parks/Open Space
This criterion assesses both the potential impacts of an alternative on existing parks and
open space in the project area, as well as the potential for an alternative to enable or
result in improvements to existing parks or the creation of additional parks and open
space.
Parks and designated open spaces are protected under the provisions of Section 4(f) and
Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.
For this criterion, any alternative that would not result in an adverse effect to the
existing parks and open spaces would be scored Positive. Alternatives that would result
in temporary changes to existing parks and open spaces would be scored Neutral.
Alternatives that would result in permanent adverse impacts to existing parks and open
spaces would be scored Negative.
Contaminated Soils
The BPY is an area with known areas of contaminated soils and groundwater.
Construction of new highway, roadway and multi-modal infrastructure in the project
area could potentially disturb areas of contamination and could result in increased costs
for construction and remedial activities. An alternative which would result in greater
impact to known areas contaminated soils and/or groundwater would be scored lower
for this criterion.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts for transportation projects are measured both on a localized
(“Microscale”) and an area-wide (“Mesoscale”) basis. Emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO) are assessed for a microscale analysis at CO “hotspots” (for this project, the toll
plaza and congested intersections where traffic from the interchange is more than 10%
of total traffic) and compared to CO 1-hour and 8-hour air quality standards.
A mesoscale air quality analysis measures the total daily emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the project area. The purpose of controlling VOC and NOx emissions is
to reduce the concentration of ground-level ozone. VOC react with NOx in the presence
9-38
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
of sunlight to create ground-level photochemical oxidants (ozone). CO is primarily a
concern with regard to local (microscale) concentrations near congested intersections.
CO2 is a concern with regard to global climate change as a greenhouse gas.
Alternatives which would result in improvements in local air quality at a greater number
of existing problem locations by reducing congestion would be scored higher than
alternatives which would result in fewer areas of improvement.
15.2.5
Land Use
Accommodate Future Development
This criterion assesses the degree to which an alternative provides roadway
infrastructure that enables future development in the project area. Elements of the new
interchange design can affect the amount of land available for future development as
well as the size and shape of potential development parcels. For example, in the absence
of a specific plan for future development an alternative which occupies greater land area
(and leaves a lesser amount of land area available for development) would be scored
lower than an alternative which occupies lesser land area. Optimal access to potential
development parcels might be provided by an alternative that did not necessarily
maximize land available for development but rather help create an effective local street
network and enhance the possibilities for and value of future local development. An
alternative that enhanced traffic flow on largely commercial roadways and minimized
impacts on local residential streets might also be desirable from the standpoint of local
business and residential development outside the immediate project area.
This criterion also assesses the degree to which an alternative can enhance local and
regional productivity and economic development. The assessment is based on travel
time benefits to and through the intersection and their general effect on the regional
economy as well as on planned and proposed development likely to be most affected by
the project. Impacts on jobs, business sales, and municipal tax revenues are also to be
considered, including existing land uses and activities as well as potential future
development.
Community Cohesion
As the Task Force has made clear to the project team, a significant community goal of
this project is to “reconnect Allston to itself and the Charles River.” This criterion is
intended to assess the ability of an alternative to improve connections between the
existing Allston neighborhoods to the Charles River and to provide for more direct
bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Packards Corner area south of the
railroad tracks and the Cambridge Street/Lower Allston area north of I-90. Design
features would include elements such as improvements to pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations along Cambridge Street and along future streets and shared-use
pathway(s) to provide for more direct east-west connections to the Charles River or
north-south connections.
9-39
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
15.2.6
Construction
Logistics
This subcategory defines the level of construction complexity associated with each of the
proposed alternatives. Alternatives with a more complex construction phasing would
score lower than alternatives with simpler phasing. This subcategory also defines the
relative difficulty in achieving compliance for each of the proposed alternatives with
current AASHTO design standards for highways and shared-use pathways, and MBTA
and AREMA standards for railroads.
Construction Phase Impacts
This subcategory includes an assessment of the likely impacts to the surrounding
neighborhoods as well as the existing highway and street network in the project area.
Included are impacts such as noise, traffic congestion and/or the difficulty of traffic
maintenance, utility relocations, the ease or difficulty of construction staging for the
alternative, ease or difficulty of maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through the
project area, and maintenance of commuter rail and freight rail operations.
15.2.7
Cost/Schedule
Construction Cost
This criterion assesses the relative cost differences between the Alternatives. This
includes an assessment of constructability, construction staging ease/restraints, traffic
management plans, risk and schedule impact on extended contractor overhead costs of
the specific alternative to meet the budget of the project. The resulting cost assessment
is a qualitative indicator of the relative cost effectiveness of the project scope as
implemented through the various alternatives.
Construction Schedule
This criterion assesses the relative schedule differences between the alternatives. The
schedule differentiators include risk, constructability, site access, construction staging
ease/restraints, traffic management plans, need to inspect and strengthen the viaduct
structure, and schedule of the specific alternative to meet the budget of the project. The
resulting schedule assessment is a qualitative indicator of the relative schedule duration
for the project scope as implemented through the various alternatives.
Maintenance/Life Cycle Cost
This subcategory defines how each of the proposed alternatives would rank from the
standpoint of Maintenance and from the standpoint of Life Cycle/Cost, which seeks to
define a threshold of benefits realized from the proposed new viaduct structure over an
extended period while minimizing financial cost. Financial cost includes not only the
cost of building a new structure or rehabilitating an existing structure, but also includes
9-40
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 9 – Supplemental Information, Alternatives
Development and Future Analyses
the cost of maintenance and repair of that structure over time. Life Cycle/Cost is
evaluated on an entire cycle over the long term. This includes both highway, rail and
pedestrian/bicycle improvements.
9-41
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
No Build
Traffic Operation
Safety
Travel Time/LOS
Intersection
Connectivity
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Safety
Pedestrian Routes
Bicycle Routes
Bus/Rail Access
Streetscape
Environmental
Drainage and
Stormwater
Historic Impacts
Wetlands
Noise
No change to
existing
deficiencies
Option 1A
Group 1 – Suburban Type
Option 1B
Option 1C
Option 1D
Group 2 – Suburban Type
Option 2B
Option 2A
High volume
weaves for EB and
WB off-ramp
movements
Improvement
Only two
connections to
Cambridge Street
High volume
weaves for EB and
WB off-ramp
movements
Improvement
Only two
connections to
Cambridge Street
High volume weaves
for EB and WB offramp movements
High volume weaves
for EB and WB offramp movements
No signals on ramps
No signals on
ramps
Improvement
Only two connections
to Cambridge Street
Improvement
Only two connections
to Cambridge Street
Improvement
Only two connections
to Cambridge Street
Improvement
Only ONE connection
to Cambridge Street
No change to
existing
deficiencies
No change to
existing
deficiencies
No change to
existing
deficiencies
No access to
West Station
No change
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Some
Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Least improvement
Some
Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Some Improvement
Least Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No access to West
Station
Improvement
No change
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
No impacts to
historic
resources
No impacts to
wetland
resources
No change to
existing noise
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Potential effect on
SFR to be
determined
Potential minor
impact to Charles
River Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
No change
No improvement
1
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
Group 1 – Suburban Type
Option 1B
Option 1C
Potential for
Potential for
additional open
additional open
space
space
Contaminated soils Contaminated soils
to be mitigated
to be mitigated
Option 1D
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated soils
to be mitigated
Group 2 – Suburban Type
Option 2B
Option 2A
Potential for
Potential for
additional open
additional open
space
space
Contaminated soils
Contaminated soils
to be mitigated
to be mitigated
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Land available but
less than Group 3
alts
No improvement
Land available but
less than Group 3
alts
No improvement
Land available but
less than Group 3
alts
No improvement
Land available but
less than Group 3
alts
No improvement
Land available but
less than Group 3
alts
No improvement
Least opportunity
No construction
issues
No construction
impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
No cost
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Lesser
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Lesser
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Lesser
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Some increase
compared to Group 1
and 2
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Lesser
Not significant
difference
Maintain schedule
Lesser
No
No
No
No
No
No
No Build
Parks/Open Space
No impacts to
existing parks
Contaminated Soils
No mitigation
Air Quality
No Improvement
Land Use
Accommodate Future
Development
Community Cohesion
Construction
Logistics
Construction Phase
Impacts
Cost/Schedule
Construction Cost
Construction Schedule
Maintenance/Life Cycle Cost
Meets Purpose and Need
No opportunity
No change
No construction
Continuing and
increasing
maintenance
costs
No
Option 1A
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
2
No improvement
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
Option 3A
Traffic Operation
Safety
Travel Time/LOS
Intersection
Connectivity
Inadequate
operations at
ramp signals
Some
Improvement
Two connections
to Cambridge
Street
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Safety
Improvement
Pedestrian Routes
Some
Improvement
Connection to
West Station
Bicycle Routes
Some
Improvement
Connection to
West Station
Right turn
conflict at
Cambridge
Option 3B
Option 3C
Option 3D
Queue length at
EB off ramp
back up to I-90;
Inadequate
Queue Storage
between ramps
& North Harvard
St.
Improvement
High volume
weave in short
distance at WB
frontage road
and WB entering
movement.
Poor operations
at ramp
connections to
Cambridge
Street
Improvement
Improvement
Two connections
to Cambridge
Street
Two connections
to Cambridge
Street
Improvement
Some
Improvement
No access to
West Station
Improvement
Some
Improvement
Difficult
crossings at
channelized
right turn lanes
Indirect access
only to West
Station.
Some
Improvement
Difficult
crossings at
channelized
right turn lanes
Indirect access
Some
Improvement
Right turn
conflict at
Cambridge
Street and
Stadium Way
Group 3 – Urban Type
Option 3E
Option 3F
Option 3G
Option 3H
Option 3I
Option 3J
Concentration of
volumes at two
Cambridge
Street
connections
leads to poor
operating
conditions
Improvement
Grade separation
of EB and WB
ramps reduces
queue
Poor operating
conditions at
Cambridge
Street and
Stadium Way
Grade
separation of EB
and WB ramps
reduces queue
Grade separation
of EB and WB
ramps reduces
queue
Grade
separation of EB
and WB ramps
reduces queue
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Three
connections to
Cambridge
Street
Two connections
to Cambridge
Street
Four connections
to Cambridge
Street
Three
connections to
Cambridge
Street
Three
connections to
Cambridge
Street
Five connections
to Cambridge
Street
Four
connections to
Cambridge
Street
Improvement
Some
Improvement
Improvement
Some
Improvement
No pedestrian
access to West
Station
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Inconvenient
pedestrian
connection to
West Station
Improvement
Inconvenient
pedestrian
connection to
West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Right turn
conflict at
Cambridge
Street and
Stadium Way
Some
Improvement
No bicycle
access to West
Station
Improvement
Some
Improvement
Right turn
conflicts along
Cambridge
Street EB
Improvement
Improvement
3
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
Bus/Rail Access
Streetscape
Drainage and
Stormwater
Historic Impacts
Wetlands
Noise
Parks/Open Space
Contaminated Soils
Air Quality
Option 3D
Group 3 – Urban Type
Option 3E
Option 3F
Option 3A
Street and
Stadium Way
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Option 3B
No access to
West Station
No access to
West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Option 3C
only to West
Station.
No access to
West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent to
Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Land Use
4
Option 3G
Option 3H
Option 3I
Option 3J
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Access provided
to West Station
Improvement
Improvement
Potential adverse
effect on SFR
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential adverse
effect on SFR
Potential
adverse effect
on SFR
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of
toll plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent
to Wadsworth,
Pratt Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of
toll plaza –
reduced queuing
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent to
Wadsworth, Pratt
Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Potential minor
impact to
Charles River
Bank
Elimination of toll
plaza
Noise barrier
along south side
of RR adjacent to
Wadsworth, Pratt
Streets
Potential for
additional open
space
Contaminated
soils to be
mitigated
Elimination of toll
plaza – reduced
queuing
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
Accommodate Future
Development
Community Cohesion
Construction
Logistics
Construction Phase
Impacts
Cost/Schedule
Construction Cost
Construction Schedule
Maintenance/Life
Cycle Cost
Meets Purpose and
Group 3 – Urban Type
Option 3E
Option 3F
Land available
Ramp layout
but less than
provides more
other Group 3
accessible
alternatives
parcels for
future
development
Option 3A
Most land
available
Option 3B
Most land
available
Option 3C
Land available
but significantly
less than other
Group 3
alternatives
Option 3D
Land available
but less than
other Group 3
alternatives
Option 3G
Ramp layout
provides more
accessible
parcels for
future
development but
less than Alt. 3F
Option 3H
Ramp layout
provides more
accessible
parcels for
future
development but
less than Alt. 3F
Option 3I
Ramp layout
provides more
accessible
parcels for
future
development
Option 3J
Ramp layout
provides more
accessible
parcels for
future
development
No improvement
No ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line
No improvement
No ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line
No improvement
No ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line
Improvement
Potential
ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line
No Improvement
No ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line but
Improvement
Ped/bike
connection to
area south of rail
line provided
No improvement
Inconvenient
pedestrian
connection to
West Station
No improvement
Inconvenient
pedestrian
connection to
West Station
Improvement
Ped/bike
connection to
area south of rail
line provided
Improvement
Ped/bike
connection to
area south of
rail line provided
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Manageable
construction
Minor impacts
Not significant
difference
I-90 WB on-ramp
would require
reconstruction of
Cambridge Street
overpass but
fewer ramp
connections than
other
alternatives
Not significant
difference
Not significant
difference
Not significant
difference
I-90 WB on-ramp
would require
reconstruction of
Cambridge
Street overpass
Not significant
difference
Not significant
difference
I-90 WB on-ramp
would require
reconstruction of
Cambridge
Street overpass
Not significant
difference
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Maintain
schedule
Less
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5
Summary of Alternatives Screening
DRAFT
Need
Option 3A
Less than other
alternatives
which provide
access to West
Station and
connections to
area south of
rail line
Option 3B
No ped/bike
access to West
Station and no
connectivity to
area south of
rail line
Option 3C
No ped/bike
access to West
Station and no
connectivity to
area south of
rail line
Option 3D
Provides
connectivity to
West Station for
all modes with
connection to
area south or
rail line
Group 3 – Urban Type
Option 3E
Option 3F
Provides
Provides
connectivity to
connectivity to
West Station for West Station for
all modes
all modes with
connection to
area south or
rail line
6
Option 3G
Provides
connectivity to
West Station for
all modes
although less
convenient
ped/bike
access than
other
alternatives
Option 3H
Provides
connectivity to
West Station for
all modes
although less
convenient
ped/bike access
than other
alternatives
Option 3I
Provides
connectivity to
West Station for
all modes with
connection to
area south or
rail line
Option 3J
Provides
connectivity to
West Station for
all modes with
connection to
area south or
rail line
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
Overview
Begun in the early spring of 2014, the goal of the I-90 Allston Interchange Improvement
Project is to reconfigure the Allston Interchange on the Massachusetts Turnpike, also
known as Exits 16, 17 and 18, and to replace the aging, structurally deficient Allston
Viaduct which carries I-90 over the Worcester/Framingham Commuter Rail line
between Boston University and Soldiers Field Road. The project will coincide with
implementation of All Electronic Tolling (AET) at the Allston Interchange, along with all
other interchanges on the Turnpike, the creation of a new commuter rail station on the
Worcester/Framingham line to serve the Allston community, a new commuter rail
layover yard and associated rail support facilities. The project also includes a suite of
traffic calming improvements to Cambridge Street, and new on- and off-street
bicycle/pedestrian facilities including a new shared use path from the area of Lincoln
Street down through the interchange parcel to the Paul Dudley White Pathway via a new
bicycle/pedestrian bridge as well as new bicycle and pedestrian connections between the
area around Boston University and Cambridge Street via the new West Station. Soldiers
Field Road will be shifted to the south underneath a portion of the replacement I-90
viaduct and the resulting space turned over to the Charles River reservation for
expansion of green space and the White Pathway. All of these elements stem from the
project’s conceptual design phase, and while all will be subject to further refinements as
the project moves through the 25% design phase, MassDOT is committed to their
inclusion in the project. Just as significantly, all of the elements outlined above come
either in part or in full from direction obtained from the Allston community.
The changes outlined above, though discussed in extreme brevity here, owe much to the
public involvement process associated with the conceptual design process.
Understanding the level of complexity associated with this project and the anxiety it
could cause, MassDOT launched an outreach effort including a project website, a series
of broadly advertised public information meetings, and an advisory Task Force. At the
time of this writing, the Task Force has met nine times with one more session
calendared for November 5th, following the filing of environmental documentation on
the 31st of October. The Task Force was composed of local residents and activists,
members of the Allston business community, and representatives of key institutional
players such as Boston and Harvard Universities.1 The project team has also had four
public information meetings: two in Allston, two in Cambridge.
Narrative of the Public Process
The first meeting associated with this project was a public information meeting held at
the Jackson-Mann Community Center in Allston on April 10th, 2014. The purpose of
1
For a listing of taskforce members, see Table 1 at the end of this Attachment 10.
10-1
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
this meeting was to introduce the project to Allston residents for the first time by laying
out MassDOT’s goals and objectives as well as the challenges the agency would have to
overcome to meet its aims. Some preliminary interchange concepts were also shared at
this meeting with the caveat that significant work remained to be accomplished both
internally and with the neighborhood before a replacement ramp system and highway
alignment would be selected. The tone of this meeting was broadly positive with many
audience members praising MassDOT for its open approach to the community. More
importantly, much of the commentary provided had a direct impact on the rest of the
project including that the project should:






Enhance safety and mobility for all modes of travel: transit, walking, cycling, and
driving;
Make improvements to Cambridge Street, calming traffic on this roadway and
making it into an urban street. Traffic entering Cambridge Street should be
slowed;
Provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to the Charles River and its associated
green space from Allston;
Make the interchange a “better neighbor,” blending it into the Allston
neighborhood such that its impact on the area is reduced;
The interchange replacement type should be the smallest one capable of
successfully processing traffic volumes; and,
Whatever option for the replacement of the interchange was selected, mainline
traffic from I-90 should not filter off the highway and onto the residential streets
of Allston.
Another public information meeting was held in Cambridge on May 1st, 2014 by
arrangement of that municipality’s city council. The themes articulated at that meeting
were very similar to those noted at the April meeting, but with a particular focus on
Cambridge issues, particularly the idea that the replacement interchange and viaduct
should not increase noise in the Cambridgeport neighborhood.2
The Task Force met for the first time on May 7th. Much of the material covered was a
more in-depth review of the information addressed during the April public information
meeting. A significant element of this meeting was providing Task Force members with
an opportunity to voice their priorities for a successful project. From that conversation
emerged the following elements which MassDOT has used for guiding principles in
developing the project to date:

Improving safety for all modes of travel, particularly at those points where
entrance and exit ramps for the Turnpike connect to local roadways;
2
At this meeting, Cambridge Councilors requested that their city be formally represented on the project’s
taskforce. Based on this request, Bill Deignan, a member of city staff, was added to the group shortly after it
began meeting.
10-2
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process





Ensuring that traffic continues to flow and that its impact on abutting residential
areas is ideally lessened, and under no circumstances made worse;
Improving multimodal connections in the area around the interchange;
Reknitting Allston to itself as the interchange acts as barrier between portions of
the neighborhood;
Tightening multimodal connections between North Allston, Allston Village and
the Charles River; and,
Creating conditions which foster local business.
Another major theme of the discussion on May 7th was the idea of developing new northsouth connections over the Turnpike and commuter rail lines between Cambridge Street
at the area around Boston University.
The Task Force next met on May 21st to discuss more background information including
current traffic operations for all modes, land ownership in the area of and immediately
around the interchange parcel, and the physical constraints associated with the project
area that had been driving the consultant team’s approach towards finding an
interchange replacement. Members of the project team also shared several interchange
concepts they had been looking at with the Task Force. Generally speaking, these fell
into two broad camps: suburban and urban with the taskforce generally preferring the
urban types as having less impact on the community and providing greater
opportunities to slow traffic to city speeds before it reaches Cambridge Street. Two
elements were integrated into the project at this meeting based on guidance from the
taskforce: a direct connection between the interchange and Soldiers Field Road inbound
and a shared use pathway from the vicinity of Lincoln Street to the Paul Dudley White
Pathway along the Charles River. The taskforce again reiterated its strong desire to see
Cambridge Street calmed and made into an urban street integrated with its community.
The Task Force also requested that the project team begin developing a set of evaluation
criteria by which to rank various interchange replacement concepts. While this
particular effort began on May 21st, it would continue throughout the summer and into
the fall. Significantly, this meeting introduced a set of “shared values” based on the
aspirations for the project articulated by both MassDOT and the Task Force. These
values have been used to guide concept development to date and will likely continue to
play an important role as the project heads into the design process. They are as follows:





Improve safety for all modes: walking, cycling, driving, transit;
Realign I-90;
Context sensitive design or:
o Lessen impact of interchange;
o Avoid inducing cut-through traffic with new configuration;
Reconnect sections of Allston to each other and the River;
Protect the neighborhood during construction;
10-3
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process


A more vibrant Cambridge Street that serves all modes; and,
Accessibility to transit at future West Station.
On June 11th, the Task Force met again to continue to discuss background data to ensure
that the membership would be working with the same baseline facts as the project team.
This meeting focused on the constraints associated with reconstruction of the I-90
where it comes out from under Commonwealth Avenue, ascends onto the Allston
viaduct, and crosses the Grand Junction Line and commuter rail tracks. This is the
tightest part of the MassDOT right-of-way, an issue which is compounded by the fact
that the viaduct is currently below modern highway safety standards without shoulders
of any kind which presents both operational challenges and an outstanding safety
hazard.3 The project team outlined a reconstruction scheme by which the viaduct could
be widened and replaced while keeping portions of the old structure in service during
the replacement process. A portion of the viaduct would extend out over Soldiers Field
Road, though not the adjacent parkland. This triggered a significant discussion among
Task Force members who expressed concerns to the project team that they were not
taking seriously their desires to improve bicycle and pedestrian connections while
minimizing impacts on the Allston neighborhood and its green space along the Charles
River. Several members suggested that MassDOT was attempting to carry more traffic
on the Turnpike through capacity enhancement.4
One important piece of Task Force direction to the project team which came out of this
discussion was the idea that the suburban interchange types should be dropped from
further consideration and that all future development efforts should focus on further
refining the urban type. The evaluation criteria requested at the previous meeting were
introduced but triggered relatively little discussion.
On June 25th, the Task Force met to both begin looking at elements of bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity and look at a series of “out of the box” solutions for the
replacement of the I-90 viaduct suggested by the Task Force based on the discussion of
a wider, design-standard viaduct which had taken place on the 11th. Among the out of
the box solutions dismissed on the basis of either cost, lack of constructability,
misalignment with the project goals, or safety deficiency were the ideas of lowering the
Turnpike and elevating the commuter rail above it, depressing the rail lines and placing
the highway above them, departing from Interstate Highway safety standards, and a
diverging diamond interchange.
One out of the box concept which has been carried forward by the project team and will
be further fleshed out in the project’s design process is the idea of shifting a portion of
3
MassDOT is actively seeking to place shoulders on other similarly “shoulderless” sections of I-90 on the Turnpike
Extension where it passes through Boston.
4
It should be noted that the shoulders envisioned are safety improvements only and will not serve to carry
additional traffic.
10-4
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
Soldiers Field Road under a widened I-90 viaduct with the resulting space nearer to the
Charles River added into the parkland. This meeting also addressed bicycle and
pedestrian connections in and around the interchange area including the connections
from the area around Babcock and Malvern Streets out to Cambridge Street, the shareduse pathway from the Lincoln Street area out to the Charles River via the interchange
parcel, and cycling and pedestrian connections between Cambridge Street and the
future West Station. Reaction to these connections was generally positive although Task
Force members reminded the project team of the need to ensure that their plans would
dovetail with the Boston Bicycle Network Plan and to work to provide a comfortable
experience for cyclists and walkers on the approach streets between Cambridge Street
and the new transit connection.
The Task Force next met on July 16th. This meeting focused primarily on process and
Cambridge Street. On the process side, the Task Force was introduced to a flowchart,
requested by the membership at the previous meeting, which showed them where they
were graphically in the overall project conceptual design process. Members appreciated
this view, but expressed concern that there would be adequate time for an “iterative”
process with the project team. The discussion next turned to the evaluation criteria
which had been growing in depth and breadth based on Task Force and community
input since May. While some of the criteria were well-received, the membership
expressed concern that the list was not comprehensive enough. Based on this reaction,
the project team offered the group a chance to contribute their own evaluation criteria
for addition by August 6th. Expanded definitions of the existing criteria were supplied to
the Task Force members to help them with this “homework” exercise to assist them in
their thinking. This meeting also showed early concepts for calming traffic on
Cambridge Street including the introduction of cycle tracks on both sides of the
roadway, on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and a tree-lined median reflected by new
street trees on either side of the road. Reaction to the Cambridge Street enhancements
was generally positive, although several Task Force members expressed their concern
over the roadway’s width and asked that the project team look at ways to narrow its
vehicular cross-section.
On August 13th, the Task Force met and began its session by addressing some of the
overlap between the MassDOT project to replace the viaduct and interchange, efforts by
the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) to understand future land use and place
making in the land that will be freed up by the reconfiguration of the interchange, and
short-term safety improvements being undertaken by the City of Boston Transportation
(BTD) and MassDOT’s District 6. This was significant in that it served to help alleviate
Task Force concerns that there was inadequate coordination between MassDOT, BRA,
and BTD. The short-term safety improvements outlined by BTD’s Commissioner Jim
Gilooly, also a Task Force member, were well-received as was the BRA presentation. As
part of the BRA presentation, chief planner Kairos Shen formally requested that
MassDOT continue to analyze the merits of Urban Interchange Option 3F which
included a high Turnpike mainline with streets ramping up to meet it. The BRA also
10-5
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
expressed support for the position held by the MassDOT team that while bicycle and
pedestrian connections to West Station and Cambridge Street from the area around
Boston University are appropriate, vehicular connections are not since this is out of
alignment with the Task Force’s direction to protect neighborhood streets from new
traffic. This meeting also addressed further revisions to the evaluation criteria. A key
element which emerged from this discussion was the idea that Task Force members
were having difficulty parsing those elements which were required to evaluate an
interchange type to take into a design effort and elements appropriate to the project’s
design period. This would become a recurring theme for much of the Task Force
process.
The meeting’s last topic was an update on the ongoing effort to analyze the shifting of
Soldiers Field Road. The project team had determined that there were two possible
options for such a shift: one which would place a portion of the road beneath the viaduct
and a more extreme version which would move the entire parkway under the structure.
Of these two, the former is considered to be far more constructible than the latter, but
the project team committed to analyzing this issue further during the design phase since
either option works equally well with any interchange replacement concept.
The September 3rd Task Force meeting returned to a focus on traffic. Scott Peterson of
the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) of the Boston Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) provided the Task Force with a briefing on how the regional travel
model, kept by CTPS as part of its mandated role, would be used to analyze the traffic
performance of the interchange concepts. While his presentation was generally wellreceived, some Task Force members questioned whether it adequately reflected
MassDOT’s GreenDOT policies and commitment to tripling the share of trips made by
walking, cycling, and transit by a third by 2030.
Following the regional traffic presentation, Mike Hall of the project team walked the
Task Force through local traffic projections with a particular focus on how the project
was tackling traffic calming on Cambridge Street. Mike’s presentation was warmly
received with several Task Force members complementing the project team for their
approach and the care clearly put into the work. Of particular interest to the
membership were north and south parallel roadways for Cambridge Street which would
help to cut down the width of this roadway and remove double turning lanes thereby
making things safer for cyclists and pedestrians. A variant presented on Cambridge
Street twinned with a southern parallel roadway was the idea, of having these two
roadways operate as a one-way pair. While this would allow both roads to be narrower,
some Task Force members suggested this would not foster ideal conditions for
businesses and transit bus users. In some instances, proponents of this idea seemed to
be leaning towards the proposition that a wider, two-way roadway would be preferable
to a one-way roadway even though it would result in narrower streets. This issue will be
further explored during the project’s design phase. Task Force members reminded the
design team to continue to focus on making the approach streets to West Station as
10-6
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
bicycle and pedestrian friendly as possible and calming Cambridge Street to make it
more of a large neighborhood road.
Following the September 3rd Task Force meeting, this group paused in its process to
bring its progress back to the broader community in a public information meeting. This
public information meeting, which had been requested by Task Force members during
the later summer sessions of their group, was held on September 18 th at the JacksonMann Community Center. The audience was briefed on the Task Force’s work to date
and then introduced to the interchange concepts then under active consideration, all of
them in the urban category, and designated Options 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I respectively.
Using 3I as an example, project staff walked the audience through new connections to
Cambridge Street, possible shifting of Soldiers Field Road and the accompanying
enlargement of the Paul Dudley White Pathway, connections to West Station for all
modes including the bicycle and pedestrian connections between Babcock and Malvern
Streets to Cambridge Street, bicycle and pedestrian enhancements along Cambridge
Street, reconstruction of the Lincoln Street pedestrian bridge, and the shared use path
from Lincoln Street to the Paul Dudley White Path.
The audience’s reaction was strongly positive with praise given to both the Task Force
and project team. Many of the comments offered by community members addressed
issues which will be further and fully tackled in the upcoming design phase including
determining how much Soldiers Field Road can shift towards Boston University,
refining bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, particularly along Cambridge Street,
and investigating measures to mitigate noise impacts from rail operations at West
Station and its associated support facilities. Several comments also addressed the strong
interest from the Allston community in land use and place making along Cambridge
Street and in the to-be-vacated land in the interchange parcel. It was noted that while
MassDOT cannot dictate land use, it will address place making along Cambridge Street
and other areas where it has control during the design phase.
The September 18th public information meeting, like its April counterpart, was mirrored
by a briefing in Cambridge on September 23rd. At the request of the City of Cambridge,
public involvement staff from the project team presented the project to the
Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association in conjunction with Task Force member
Jessica Roberts. Due to a full agenda, the presentation of the project was heavily
compressed, but the audience was generally supportive. Project team members were
able to address traffic and noise concerns voice by audience members though it is
recognized that more work remains to be done on both topics during the design phase.
While it is outside of the project scope, significant interest was expressed in providing a
bicycle and pedestrian connection from the Paul Dudley White Path to Cambridge via
the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge which the I-90 Allston Project is holding harmless
to ensure the viability of future transit operations over this structure. The project will
do nothing to prevent these future connections in addressing the replacement of the
viaduct and interchange.
10-7
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
On October 1st, the Task Force met again to continue its work. At this Task Force
meeting, MassDOT project manager Mike O’Dowd reminded the membership that the
day prior, Governor Deval Patrick had officially incorporated the construction of West
Station into the project, funding for its creation having been arranged. Prior to this
point, only planning for the station had been integrated into the project. The manager of
MassDOT’s GreenDOT project, Assistant Secretary Ned Codd, was also present to
discuss how his unit interfaces with the project and how he will continue to monitor it
through design to ensure that it meets the agency’s internal environmental goals. A
listing of elements, nearly all of them items of significant community interest, which will
be addressed during the design phase, was provided by the project team.
This meeting was significant in that members of the project team presented the Task
Force with Option 3J, a member of the urban interchange group, which is “descended”
from Option 3F, but with modifications based on input received from the community
and Task Force. Future traffic operations under this option were also presented. While
the option was positively received, the Task Force’s focus was once again heavily on
design period questions particularly making the approach streets between Cambridge
Street and West Station pedestrian friendly. Some members of the Task Force
suggested this could only be accomplished through the incorporation of a deck over the
commuter rail layover tracks. While MassDOT cannot create such a deck, as it is not the
landowner, the highway division and MBTA are conducting their planning and
engineering exercises in the area to ensure that places for support columns are made if
Harvard University wishes to exercise its air rights. The idea of a full vehicular
connection between Babcock and Malvern Streets to Cambridge Street was raised again
by a handful of Task Force members. As was noted in August, this idea is not seen as
desirable by MassDOT, BTD, or the BRA. Lastly, Task Force members underscored the
importance of continued public involvement during the design period with several
asking that the Task Force be kept in operation.
On October 15, the Task Force met to discuss the conceptual design of West Station, the
upcoming environmental filings and design process, and to view 3-D renderings of
Option 3J. This last was especially important to the Task Force and the renderings were
warmly received with several Task Force members expressing their thanks for the work
which had clearly gone into them. The discussion of the conceptual design of West
Station was kicked off by Matt Ciborowski, MassDOT transportation program planner.
The conversation covered conceptual design aesthetics, West Station access and
frequency of usage. It was described that in general, West Station will have an
appearance similar to the Yawkey Way Station and the JFK/UMass Station where
pedestrians will travel from the boarding platform, up and across a mezzanine deck to
access train facilities. Relating to West Station but in a larger context, the Task Force
conversation shifted to the discussion of pedestrian and bicycle connections across the
Beacon Park Rail Yard (BPY). It was questioned whether the pedestrian and bicycle
10-8
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
throughway would be a part of West Station or separate. MassDOT explained that the
connection across the BPY will be at West Station but separate from the Station
facilities. Connections across the rail yard will be accessible at times when West Station
is closed. The final point of discussion surrounded the Task Force’s deep interest in the
public involvement process following the end of the conceptual design phase. At
present, MassDOT is committed to quarterly meetings, briefing community groups upon
request, maintenance of the project website, and responses to inquiries via email and
telephone.
As was noted earlier in this document, the Task Force will gather again on November 5th
to provide the membership with copies of the environmental documentation and
guidance on engaging with the MEPA process.
Conclusion
Option 3J and its variants will be listed as the preferred concepts in the Environmental
Notification Form the Allston Interchange Improvement Project team files with the
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs at the end of October, 2014. In
brief, it includes an urban interchange, pedestrian and bicycle improvements along
Cambridge Street, a shared-use pathway from the area adjacent to Lincoln Street
directly to the Charles River’s green space and Paul Dudley White Path, bicycle and
pedestrian connections between the area around Boston University out to Cambridge
Street, West Station, and a direct connection between the approach streets from I-90
out to Soldiers Field Road. A short parallel roadway to Cambridge Street’s north helps
to bring traffic from Soldiers Field Road to I-90 east and westbound to help narrow
Cambridge Street. Its two chief variants include a Parallel Roadway south of Cambridge
Street which depending on what is discovered in the design phase could be one way,
operating as a pair with a one-way Cambridge Street, or two-way with a two-way
Cambridge Street. The exact location of the shared use pathway could vary based on
whether this Parallel Road south of Cambridge Street is found to be required for traffic
operations and meeting other project goals such as a narrower, calmer, more
neighborhood-like Cambridge Street, but the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along
one alignment or another. This option for the replacement of the current interchange
can clearly be seen to have benefitted from and driven by input as laid out in this
document. It successfully addresses both the shared values outlined in May, and the
following elements which we have found to be essential to the community:



New bicycle and pedestrian connections east-to-west and north-to-south;
New connections to the Charles River, drawing Allston closer to its key green
space;
A realigned I-90 can take full advantage of the air quality benefits associated
with AET while having a reduced impact on the surrounding neighborhood;
10-9
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process



Highway-like roads are pushed as far back towards the mainline of I-90 as
possible;
A calmer, more neighborly Cambridge Street on which cars still flow, but do not
dominate; and,
New transit connections to Boston, Newton, Framingham, and Worcester via
commuter rail at West Station.
Even the chief questions that remain to be answered in the design period are from the
Task Force: just how much can Soldiers Field Road shift to the south and how much
new green space will that create? Should there be a Parallel Road to the south of
Cambridge Street and if so, should it operate in a one-way pair with Cambridge Street?
What is the right allocation of space on the new shared-use pathway? What are the
appropriate noise mitigation steps to take to protect the neighborhood for commuter
rail operations at West Station? The fact that these questions have come to the fore over
the past few Task Force meetings show that this project is ready to move ahead into
design and to allow the community to truly begin wrestling with those elements which
will ultimately impact their daily lives. At the 9th taskforce session, while many of these
questions were voiced again, nobody looked at Option 3J and said “that isn’t it.” While
much work remains to take the concept of Option 3J and make from it a buildable
design, MassDOT and its design team are ready and excited, with the continued help
and advice of the Allston community, to do just that.
10-10
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
Table 1 – Taskforce Listing and Affiliations
Name
Joseph Beggan
Glen Berkowitz
Andrew Bettinelli
William Brownsberger
Steve Bushnell
Craig Cashman
Mark Ciommo
Nick Clemons
Ken Coelho
Jim Curley
John Cusack
Matthew Danish
Bill Deignan
Sal DiDomenico
Richard Dimino
Anthony D’Isidoro
Brain Doherty
Rochelle Dunne
Paola Ferrer
Nicole Freedman
James Gillooly
Anabela Gomes
Vineet Gupta
Mark Handley
Bruce Houghton
Kevin Honan
Barbara Jacobson
Stephen Jones
Marc Kadish
John Laadt
Wendy Landman
Elizabeth Leary
Will Luzier
David Loutzenheiser
Wayne MacKenzie
Mary Maguire
Harry Mattison
Galen Mook
Affiliation
Harvard University
Livable Street
Senator Brownsberger Staff
State Senator
Senator DiDomenico Staff
Representative Moran Staff
Boston City Councilor
Congressman Kennedy Staff
Federal Highway Administration
Representative Honan Staff
Allston Resident
Allston Civic Association
City of Cambridge Planning Department
State Senator
A Better City
Allston Civic Association
Boston Building Trades Council
Allston Resident
Allston Resident
Boston Bikes Program
Boston Transportation Department
Brighton Allston Improvement
Boston Transportation Department
Councilor Ciommo Staff
Houghton Chemical
State Representative
Mass Bike
MBTA
Allston Board of Trade
Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services
Walk Boston
Boston University
Allston Resident
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Allston Resident
Triple AAA
Charles River Conservancy
Allston Resident
10-11
I-90 Allston Interchange Project
Environmental Notification Form
Attachment 10
Summary of Public Outreach Process
Table 1 – Taskforce Listing and Affiliations
Name
Michael Moran
Tom Nally
Paul Nelson
Alana Olsen
Joe Orfant
John Pourbaix
Susanne Rassmussen
Tad Read
Jessica Robertson
Steve Silveira
David Watson5
Kevin Wright
Jillian Zywien
5
Affiliation
State Representative
A Better City
MASCO
Allston Village Main Streets
Department
of
Conservation
and
Recreation
Construction Industries of Massachusetts
City of Cambridge Planning Department
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Allston Resident
Boston University
Mass Bike
Federal Highway Administration
Mass Motor Association
th
Replaced after the 9 taskforce meeting by interim director Barbara Johnson.
10-12